Why Federer Will Not Have A Late Career Surge Like Agassi

P

PRO STAFF

Banned
I truly believe that Agassi's late career surge had to do with one thing; Courts slowing down.

Getting older and losing a step, it's a dream come true for a baseliner like Agassi.

With Federer on the other hand, courts have slowed down since he started as a pro. Now if some miracle happened and they sped up courts all around, yea I would say Fed would be back winning GS's, but it's way too late. He's lost his perfect anticipation, movement, and while still good enough and experienced enough to wipe up many in the top ranks, I am convinced he will continue to decline.

I'm AMAZED how people ignore court speed. Is there anyone who denies Sampras was one of the best? Yet he couldn't touch the FO.

I think it's a pity what happened to Fed during his career, a natural S&V player forced to turn into an aggressive baseliner. Be honest, and imagine if court speed stayed the same as the 90's, does anyone doubt Fed would have won over 20 GS's? If so you aren't being honest or don't know tennis.

I suspect Fed will retire, yea he'll get as much money out of it as he can, but he's through.
 
PRO STAFF said:
I truly believe that Agassi's late career surge had to do with one thing; Courts slowing down.

Getting older and losing a step, it's a dream come true for a baseliner like Agassi.

With Federer on the other hand, courts have slowed down since he started as a pro. Now if some miracle happened and they sped up courts all around, yea I would say Fed would be back winning GS's, but it's way too late. He's lost his perfect anticipation, movement, and while still good enough and experienced enough to wipe up many in the top ranks, I am convinced he will continue to decline.

I'm AMAZED how people ignore court speed. Is there anyone who denies Sampras was one of the best? Yet he couldn't touch the FO.

I think it's a pity what happened to Fed during his career, a natural S&V player forced to turn into an aggressive baseliner. Be honest, and imagine if court speed stayed the same as the 90's, does anyone doubt Fed would have won over 20 GS's? If so you aren't being honest or don't know tennis.

I suspect Fed will retire, yea he'll get as much money out of it as he can, but he's through.
Click to expand...

natural serve and volleyer my foot......he is a baseliner like all his peers......had they not slowed down the surfaces, he would have been at 5 or 6 slams max with frequent losses in the first week of slams.......

even nadal and djokovic wouldn't have dominated so much.......slams would have been distributed more evenly through the top tier of the field with a lot of randomers chipping in once in a while.......

it's laughable how delusional fediva lovers are.......
 
Start da Game said:
natural serve and volleyer my foot......he is a baseliner like all his peers......had they not slowed down the surfaces, he would have been at 5 or 6 slams max with frequent losses in the first week of slams.......

even nadal and djokovic wouldn't have dominated so much.......slams would have been distributed more evenly through the top tier of the field with a lot of randomers chipping in once in a while.......

it's laughable how delusional fediva lovers are.......
Click to expand...

You have no clue what you are talking about, I'll let others show you.
 
PRO STAFF said:
I truly believe that Agassi's late career surge had to do with one thing; Courts slowing down.

Getting older and losing a step, it's a dream come true for a baseliner like Agassi.

With Federer on the other hand, courts have slowed down since he started as a pro. Now if some miracle happened and they sped up courts all around, yea I would say Fed would be back winning GS's, but it's way too late. He's lost his perfect anticipation, movement, and while still good enough and experienced enough to wipe up many in the top ranks, I am convinced he will continue to decline.

I'm AMAZED how people ignore court speed. Is there anyone who denies Sampras was one of the best? Yet he couldn't touch the FO.

I think it's a pity what happened to Fed during his career, a natural S&V player forced to turn into an aggressive baseliner. Be honest, and imagine if court speed stayed the same as the 90's, does anyone doubt Fed would have won over 20 GS's? If so you aren't being honest or don't know tennis.

I suspect Fed will retire, yea he'll get as much money out of it as he can, but he's through.
Click to expand...

Over 20 GS's !! Why stop there ? Why not over 30 ? Fed is a natural serve and volleyer ??? Good grief.

Put the crack pipe away.
 
Start da Game said:
natural serve and volleyer my foot......he is a baseliner like all his peers......had they not slowed down the surfaces, he would have been at 5 or 6 slams max with frequent losses in the first week of slams.......

even nadal and djokovic wouldn't have dominated so much.......slams would have been distributed more evenly through the top tier of the field with a lot of randomers chipping in once in a while.......

it's laughable how delusional fediva lovers are.......
Click to expand...

If the courts were still fast, Federer would have bagged most of the Djokovic/Nadal/Murray HC/Grass slams. Plus insane no. of M1000s. But yeah, the top 10 would have changed frequently and would be pretty different than today's.
This coming from a true S&V fan.
 
Agassi stuck around for 2001-2003 (transitional era) and had some cakewalk draws (2001 & 2003 AO) which explained the impressive results at the end of his career. Federer already has had his fair share of those in his prime. The only way Fed will win slams at this stage is if he doesn't have to play anybody in the top 8 (maybe apart from Ferrer).
 
PRO STAFF said:
That's weird, I would never say "Blah, blah, blah", perhaps two of us?
Click to expand...

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/blah
"Also used when recalling and retelling another's words, as a substitute for the portions of the speech deemed irrelevant."

The content of your first post wasn't relevant to me, so I substituted your words for the sake of brevity. What was relevant was the fact that you replied to yourself, apparently only to tell yourself what a great point you made. I offered two possible suggestions for why you did this: MPD and accidentally posting with the wrong account (i.e. you have a second account for blowing smoke up your own ***, but inadvertantly used the first account twice).

You haven't yet offered a third alternative, but I'd certainly be amenable to hearing it. :)


Regards,
MDL

PS Your above-quoted line, "perhaps two of us", makes no sense to me. Perhaps two of us what?
 
PRO STAFF said:
I truly believe that Agassi's late career surge had to do with one thing; Courts slowing down.

Getting older and losing a step, it's a dream come true for a baseliner like Agassi.

With Federer on the other hand, courts have slowed down since he started as a pro. Now if some miracle happened and they sped up courts all around, yea I would say Fed would be back winning GS's, but it's way too late. He's lost his perfect anticipation, movement, and while still good enough and experienced enough to wipe up many in the top ranks, I am convinced he will continue to decline.

I'm AMAZED how people ignore court speed. Is there anyone who denies Sampras was one of the best? Yet he couldn't touch the FO.

I think it's a pity what happened to Fed during his career, a natural S&V player forced to turn into an aggressive baseliner. Be honest, and imagine if court speed stayed the same as the 90's, does anyone doubt Fed would have won over 20 GS's? If so you aren't being honest or don't know tennis.

I suspect Fed will retire, yea he'll get as much money out of it as he can, but he's through.
Click to expand...


as you are saying well point !! to yours thread with same
username u are troll
 
Agassi had a "surge" because it was comparative to what he did when he was younger. If Federer had one of those (which I highly doubt) it would still pale in comparison to what he did in his early-mid 20s. Not only that, Agassi wasted away about 2 years of his 20s doing crystal meth, which I believe left him with more in the tank at the end. People like to compare Fed and Agassi because of their relatively similar smooth styles, but really, they're two totally different career trajectories.
 
I agree - Federer is a preternaturally instinctive player - the more time he has to "think" before hitting a shot, the more chances there are of him making the wrong shot selection. He is a naturally gifted player whose talents have been thwarted by the slowing down of courts, enabling the homogenized surfaces to level the playing field.
 
One thing is for sure...Nadal would not have a single slam outside the FO if the courts were as fast.

Fed would have still dominated. Not sure if he would have more or less but he has proved himself on fast surfaces and to say that he would win only 5 or 6 is just ......well plain stupid!

Maybe we would have a different rival who's game was better suited to faster courts?
 
Federer could not win a major until the courts/ball became slower. The courts/balls started slowing down at the beginning of 2000. This is one of the reasons that Sampras had a lot of problems and left the sport. He could no longer dominate off of his amazing serve any longer.

If the courts did become even slower over the years and as of late, it would only serve to help Federer since he is slower and can no longer serve big without hurting his back.

Speeding up the courts would hurt Federer not help him, and bringing the courts back to pre 2000 speeds would absolutely end his career.


PRO STAFF said:
I truly believe that Agassi's late career surge had to do with one thing; Courts slowing down.

Getting older and losing a step, it's a dream come true for a baseliner like Agassi.

With Federer on the other hand, courts have slowed down since he started as a pro. Now if some miracle happened and they sped up courts all around, yea I would say Fed would be back winning GS's, but it's way too late. He's lost his perfect anticipation, movement, and while still good enough and experienced enough to wipe up many in the top ranks, I am convinced he will continue to decline.

I'm AMAZED how people ignore court speed. Is there anyone who denies Sampras was one of the best? Yet he couldn't touch the FO.

I think it's a pity what happened to Fed during his career, a natural S&V player forced to turn into an aggressive baseliner. Be honest, and imagine if court speed stayed the same as the 90's, does anyone doubt Fed would have won over 20 GS's? If so you aren't being honest or don't know tennis.

I suspect Fed will retire, yea he'll get as much money out of it as he can, but he's through.
Click to expand...
 
jackson vile said:
Federer could not win a major until the courts/ball became slower. The courts/balls started slowing down at the beginning of 2000. This is one of the reasons that Sampras had a lot of problems and left the sport. He could no longer dominate off of his amazing serve any longer.

If the courts did become even slower over the years and as of late, it would only serve to help Federer since he is slower and can no longer serve big without hurting his back.

Speeding up the courts would hurt Federer not help him, and bringing the courts back to pre 2000 speeds would absolutely end his career.
Click to expand...

LOL. :lol:

Can you also comment on what speeding up the courts would do to Nadal's career? and how many slams he would have won outside the FO?
 
Start da Game said:
natural serve and volleyer my foot......he is a baseliner like all his peers......had they not slowed down the surfaces, he would have been at 5 or 6 slams max with frequent losses in the first week of slams.......

even nadal and djokovic wouldn't have dominated so much.......slams would have been distributed more evenly through the top tier of the field with a lot of randomers chipping in once in a while.......

it's laughable how delusional fediva lovers are.......
Click to expand...

I am a big Federer fan and Federer would have 18 to 20 slams if courts were faster. Even Murray acknowledged this after losing to Federer on a faster hard court when he said "Federer would still be no 1 if the courts were faster". Federer best surfaces are grass and pre-2010 USO where the courts are fastest. Yes, he is predominately a baseliner but he has the best variety and best net game in the top 20 by a long shot.

The reason Federer MAY NOT win anymore major titles is he is 32 years old and has played over 1,000 ATP matches. Of the top players Nadal is closest at roughly 700 matches. That's a HUGE difference.

Agassi took time off to do drugs and get fat and the time off give him a break. He had a bit of a resurgence when he came back. Federer is only now playing less and it is because of back injury.

I suppose next you'll be telling me how Nadal is the best volleyer which is total BS.
 
Start da Game said:
natural serve and volleyer my foot......he is a baseliner like all his peers......had they not slowed down the surfaces, he would have been at 5 or 6 slams max with frequent losses in the first week of slams.......

even nadal and djokovic wouldn't have dominated so much.......slams would have been distributed more evenly through the top tier of the field with a lot of randomers chipping in once in a while.......

it's laughable how delusional fediva lovers are.......
Click to expand...

totally agree. people think federer is a serve and volleyer because he looks like those serve and volleyers of years yonder. why? because he has a one handed backhand. through the years of borg vs mcenroe, mcenroe vs connors, agassi vs pete etc, we had formed some unfounded attachment that 2HBH = baseliner and 1HBH = S&V player. of course that is generally true in the past but its not a necessary condition. In reality, federer is a baseliner through and through. sure he is an extremely offensive minded baseliner, with one of the most explosive and spectacular game in history. but he is a baseliner.
 
Didn't Federer also win 5 Slams after turning 27? So how is that a lesser "late career surge"? Or is your 'third heart' saying Agassi was better than Federer?
 
Nostradamus said:
Well people thought Roger wouldn't win Wimbledon last year and yet he did. so what does that tell you ?
Click to expand...
Exactly. I love how people write Federer off so easily now. Sampras was struggling everywhere for two years before he won his last US Open.

We have not seen the last of Federer. His post Aussie Open run in 2012 was truly outstanding - he was easily the best player on tour for six months. Those skills don't evaporate overnight. He's just in funk mode and needs some matches to jolt him back into his groove. He's got stiff competition at the majors but he's still more dangerous at majors than anyone outside Djokovic, Nadal and Murray. I'd actually put him on par with Murray still averaged out across a year.
 
Russeljones said:
Didn't Federer also win 5 Slams after turning 27? So how is that a lesser "late career surge"? Or is your 'third heart' saying Agassi was better than Federer?
Click to expand...

Well, Agassi won 5 slams after turning 29 years old not 27. Comparatively, Federer has only won 1 slam since he turned 29.
 
jackson vile said:
Federer could not win a major until the courts/ball became slower. The courts/balls started slowing down at the beginning of 2000. This is one of the reasons that Sampras had a lot of problems and left the sport. He could no longer dominate off of his amazing serve any longer.

If the courts did become even slower over the years and as of late, it would only serve to help Federer since he is slower and can no longer serve big without hurting his back.

Speeding up the courts would hurt Federer not help him, and bringing the courts back to pre 2000 speeds would absolutely end his career.
Click to expand...

Disagree 100%. It's the other way around...slowing down and increasing bounce cut down Roger's domination. It's serves well for defensive/pusher oriented player like Nadal.
 
Bobby Jr said:
Exactly. I love how people write Federer off so easily now. Sampras was struggling everywhere for two years before he won his last US Open.

We have not seen the last of Federer. His post Aussie Open run in 2012 was truly outstanding - he was easily the best player on tour for six months. Those skills don't evaporate overnight. He's just in funk mode and needs some matches to jolt him back into his groove. He's got stiff competition at the majors but he's still more dangerous at majors than anyone outside Djokovic, Nadal and Murray. I'd actually put him on par with Murray still averaged out across a year.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of this. It really is quite funny how people are writing him off. Like they haven't learned anything. Could he be done? Sure he could, but some of the stuff I've read the past two months or so is downright hilarious.
 
Monsieur_DeLarge said:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/blah
"Also used when recalling and retelling another's words, as a substitute for the portions of the speech deemed irrelevant."

The content of your first post wasn't relevant to me, so I substituted your words for the sake of brevity. What was relevant was the fact that you replied to yourself, apparently only to tell yourself what a great point you made. I offered two possible suggestions for why you did this: MPD and accidentally posting with the wrong account (i.e. you have a second account for blowing smoke up your own ***, but inadvertantly used the first account twice).

You haven't yet offered a third alternative, but I'd certainly be amenable to hearing it. :)


Regards,
MDL

PS Your above-quoted line, "perhaps two of us", makes no sense to me. Perhaps two of us what?
Click to expand...

Seems like MPD to me. The poster doesn't even seem to understand what is going on.
 
PRO STAFF said:
I truly believe that Agassi's late career surge had to do with one thing; Courts slowing down.

Getting older and losing a step, it's a dream come true for a baseliner like Agassi.

With Federer on the other hand, courts have slowed down since he started as a pro. Now if some miracle happened and they sped up courts all around, yea I would say Fed would be back winning GS's, but it's way too late. He's lost his perfect anticipation, movement, and while still good enough and experienced enough to wipe up many in the top ranks, I am convinced he will continue to decline.

I'm AMAZED how people ignore court speed.
Click to expand...

Yes, that was fundamental change, along with heavier, touch bigger balls (and of course the string).
That is sceismic change in professional tennis. Many players had hiatus from tour and modified their
game into baseline one.

However, I'm not sure if you are keen on the timing of slowing down of surfaces.
The majority of changes in Wimbledon and US Open happened between 2001-2004.

Worked out OK for Agassi. Agassi forte was Aussi Open. Medium slow hard court.
But also surge of Federer's career and tour wide baseline tennis coincidentally.
Federer started domination AFTER courts slowed down and baseline tennis prevailed.

I think court condition is all right for older Federer.
Right now, no teenager is in top 200 and the age of top 25 is older than
ever. The condition is very favorable for older players.
 
Last edited:
Feds game suited to fast courts

Explains his indoor domination where apart from the fast speed the ball does not bounce high

Everyone knows that deep down. Without the slow courts of today where would nadal djocko murray be.

Nadal 6 FOs and maybe maybe one Aussie open

Djocko 4 gs

Murray big fat 0
 
Steve0904 said:
Well, Agassi won 5 slams after turning 29 years old not 27. Comparatively, Federer has only won 1 slam since he turned 29.
Click to expand...

Oh so there is a definite period now for when a career starts and ends? Is it on the Atp Word Tour website?

Federer didn't have to wait for anyone to decline for him to win Slams. Again, why are Federer's achievements post turning 27 discounted? If anything Agassi filled in a vacuum as the best qualified second best. Just like Nadal has been doing for a while.
 
objectivity said:
totally agree. people think federer is a serve and volleyer because he looks like those serve and volleyers of years yonder. why? because he has a one handed backhand. through the years of borg vs mcenroe, mcenroe vs connors, agassi vs pete etc, we had formed some unfounded attachment that 2HBH = baseliner and 1HBH = S&V player. of course that is generally true in the past but its not a necessary condition. In reality, federer is a baseliner through and through. sure he is an extremely offensive minded baseliner, with one of the most explosive and spectacular game in history. but he is a baseliner.
Click to expand...

Totally disagree. I have been watching and playing tennis for over 35 years and I don't view Federer as S&V player because he has 1 HBH like old time S&V players.

I view Federer as the most well rounded player in the top 20 and that includes attacking the net. Federer's 2012 Wimby and 2011 YEC victories and many of his other major wins showed FAR MORE variety and a lot more forays to the net than I have EVER seen Murry, Djoko, or Nadal use. The only player showing as much propensity to attack is probably Llordra and he is not in the same class as the others. That is why Federer would do better than current top players on faster courts. He likes to mix it up and is far and away the best at it.

Do you really think Djoko, Murray or Nadal is anywhere near as comfortable on fast courts. They all hate to go to net - Djoko actually backs up frequently when he has a chance to attack, Murray and Nadal only go in when they have crushed a ball and see a floater coming back, and all of them very rarely use a really S&V or even chip and charge tactic. Federer comes in from a more neutral position, and uses move S&V and chip and charge. He also volleys better than the other 3 and hits overheads as good or better than the other 3. Murray and Nadal could potentially get better at net but they rarely use it as a tactic unless they are volleying a floater. Djoko pretty much sucks in the forecourt - his volley is bad and his overhead is probably not in the top 100 in the world.
 
Last edited:
One last argument is Wimby is the measure of "who is the best fast court player" as it is the only remaining major that plays fast. Federer has 7 titles and big consecutive win streak. Wimby rewards attacking tennis and net play SIGNIFICANTLY more than other majors. Djoko, Nadal and Murray have a long way to go to show that Wimby is their dominate major. Djoko is best at Aussie Open, Nadal at Roland Garros, and Murray is not dominate in any major yet so the jury is still out on him. But, Murray has been far from dominating at Wimby to date.
 
Agassi's longevity and late career surge was very impressive but still overrated, as it was only possible due to him not dedicating himself fully to the sport before 1998, with the exception of 1995. Had he done so, he wouldn't have had enough left in the tank to achieve such great results after turning 30, and he admitted that himself.

Sampras's longevity (where he won slams as a teenager, in his 20s and in his 30s) was better than Agassi's I would say.
 
Gizo said:
Agassi's longevity and late career surge was very impressive but still overrated, as it was only possible due to him not dedicating himself fully to the sport before 1998, with the exception of 1995. Had he done so, he wouldn't have had enough left in the tank to achieve such great results after turning 30, and he admitted that himself.

Sampras's longevity (where he won slams as a teenager, in his 20s and in his 30s) was better than Agassi's I would say.
Click to expand...

Exacty! It's all about mileage. Over the span of 21 year pro career Agassi particpated in 1144 matches (an avg. of 54 matches per year).

While Federer over a 15 year pro career (1998-2013) has played 1077 matches (an avg. of 72 matches per year), and the discrepancy only increases once you stratify Agassi's career by pre and post 1998, and take into consideration Federer's prime (2004-2007) when he was averaging 90+ matches per season.

Agassi was able to extend his longevity by not having played as rigorously through his late twenties thus not having taken as much of a toll physically as he would have otherwise. For the last couple of years Federer had been fooling people into thinking that age is an illusory barrier by virtue of his superlative talent and physical fitness, but even the fact that he had declined relative to his physical prime years was obvious to all but the most fanatical of haters and the most obsequiously zealous of fans.
 
Last edited:
Start da Game said:
natural serve and volleyer my foot......he is a baseliner like all his peers......had they not slowed down the surfaces, he would have been at 5 or 6 slams max with frequent losses in the first week of slams.......

even nadal and djokovic wouldn't have dominated so much.......slams would have been distributed more evenly through the top tier of the field with a lot of randomers chipping in once in a while.......

it's laughable how delusional fediva lovers are.......
Click to expand...

federer used to s&v quite a lot when he was younger. A great example is his Wimbledon 2003. He was volleying very well throughout that tournament. Hit some stunning absolutely beautiful volleys in his semifinal vs. Roddick. Federer was amazing in that match. I could not help but applaud his efforts despite being sad my favorite player didn't reach the final.
 
IMHO, if the speed of the courts had not been slowed down, it would not have hurt Fed as much as some of his current top competitors (Djoker, Murray, Rafa, etc.). I believe he would have still won 17 GS titles, and no less. Whereas his other competitiors would have struggled to win their current share. That is based on the fact that Fed showed skills of S&V at least at the start of his ascension. Can anyone say the same for Djoker, Rafa, and Murray, and even Berdy Man, Soderling, etc.? No, I don't think so.
 
Agassi had the uncanny ability to take the ball early and dictate play from baseline despite losing his speed and movement as he aged. Federer doesn't have the luxury of that. He has to work more for his points.

There are few and far between players like Agassi. He was the cleanest striker in history, and took the ball earlier than anyone. His hand eye coordination was perhaps the best ever as well.

I don't think it has too much to do with Agassi had a few MIA years there. Listen, when you're in your 30s, you are in your 30s. Regardless of how much mileage you have on you, Agassi was playing guys TEN YEARS younger than him. (Federer, Hewitt, Roddick etc). Thats one big *** age difference in tennis
 
Last edited:
90's Clay said:
Agassi had the uncanny ability to take the ball early and dictate play despite losing his speed and movement as he aged. Federer doesn't have the luxury of that. He has to work more for his points
Click to expand...

Are you joking? Federer (in his prime) hit ball on the rise earlier than anyone (before or since).
 
10is said:
Are you joking? Federer (in his prime) hit ball on the rise earlier than anyone (before or since).
Click to expand...

Federer never hit the ball earlier than Andre. Stop.. He also couldn't connect with the ball as well as Andre on a consistent basis basis like Agassi.

Thats why Andre gave so many guys (including Roger) such trouble when he was in his mid 30s. His ability to instantly turn defense into offense because of how clean and early he took the ball


Guys today should be damn lucky they don't have to deal with that today under today's conditions


Hell if Andre's back didn't go he would have probably been still competing for slams at 40
 
Last edited:
90's Clay said:
Federer never hit the ball earlier than Andre. Stop.. He also couldn't connect with the ball as well as Andre on a consistent basis basis like Agassi.

Thats why Andre gave so many guys (including Roger) such trouble when he was in his mid 30s. His ability to instantly turn defense into offense because of how clean and early he took the ball


Guys today should be damn lucky they don't have to deal with that today under today's conditions


Hell if Andre's back didn't go he would have probably been still competing for slams at 40
Click to expand...

So now we're on how early to hit the ball? You watched Sampras, Agassi play and skip Fed until this year. Tell me how can one can be an agressive baseliner (if that's what you guys like to label Fed), and not hugging the baseline and hit the ball early? Are we comparing the milliseconds between Agassi and Fed's shots, shot by shot over their entire career? Even that, show me a link, or some kind of scientific comparisons where Agassi CONSISTENTLY hit earlier than Fed?
 
PRO STAFF said:
I truly believe that Agassi's late career surge had to do with one thing; Courts slowing down.

Getting older and losing a step, it's a dream come true for a baseliner like Agassi.

With Federer on the other hand, courts have slowed down since he started as a pro. Now if some miracle happened and they sped up courts all around, yea I would say Fed would be back winning GS's, but it's way too late. He's lost his perfect anticipation, movement, and while still good enough and experienced enough to wipe up many in the top ranks, I am convinced he will continue to decline.

I'm AMAZED how people ignore court speed. Is there anyone who denies Sampras was one of the best? Yet he couldn't touch the FO.

I think it's a pity what happened to Fed during his career, a natural S&V player forced to turn into an aggressive baseliner. Be honest, and imagine if court speed stayed the same as the 90's, does anyone doubt Fed would have won over 20 GS's? If so you aren't being honest or don't know tennis.

I suspect Fed will retire, yea he'll get as much money out of it as he can, but he's through.
Click to expand...

fed isn't a serve n volleyer..and slow courts help a slower fed stay in the point he needs more time to get his creaking body into position..

old school grass and carpet etc would leave him even worse off.
 
@90's Clay:

:lol:

OMG! You are delusional!

Federer's supreme ability to take the ball early on a consistent basis was what garnered him his success during his prime, which was epitomized by his whip-lash forehand (kill shot). It wasn’t merely his ability to fire winners off that side that set him apart but rather, his combination of power, spin, versatility, taking the ball early, and the ability to hit it on the run that made him a nightmare to deal with.

... and the reason why he was better at it than any other player in history was his "poetry in motion" otherworldly movement. He always put himself in the perfect position to take the ball precisely when he meant to, with devastating results. The mixture of movement, precision, and taking the ball on the rise rendered his game near unplayable.

Which is also consequently why he couldn't handle Nadal's topspin because it is impossible to withstand that kind of high bouncing top-spin on the rise with a 1HBH without shanking a lot.

Oh, and talking about turning defense to offense and vice versa -- Federer (back in the day) also had the best transition game bar none for all the reasons I have already explained above.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Why Fed is GOAT-It's in the courts
2
Replies
63
Views
5K
Mick3391
M
S
Such a pity what the powers the be have done to Federer
2 3
Replies
101
Views
6K
RalphJ
RalphJ
S
Why I believe Fed is the GOAT-New View
2
Replies
58
Views
4K
SublimeTennis
S
M
Why Federer is better than Nadal
2
Replies
61
Views
7K
15_ounce
1
M
Why Fed will win the OZ Open
2
Replies
51
Views
6K
fedfan46
F
Back
Top