Changes for Federer?

[tented]

Man, I miss Gonzo on tour. What a tournament he played in 2007

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBOeQayp26A

I miss him, too. While I understand your wanting to show how he beat Rafa, his match against Haas, in the semifinal, was even more impressive. In fact, when Gonzalez retired a reporter asked him which was his most memorable match, and he picked this one.

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lR92UVCZV0[/video]

 

[DarthFed]

Federer is lucky all the courts are slower than in olden days..

gives him a chance to move his Zimmerframe into position before slapping the ball back.

Not sure if you are serious here but had they not slowed down Wimbledon, AO and the USO, in my opinion Roger would very likely be sitting on 20+ slams and still be #1 right now. I think he would prefer it to be like in the 90s instead of having to torture himself in brutal baseline wars on pretty mich every surface he enters these days with a ridiculous mileage on his body. I can only imagine how great his first strike tennis would have looked like on much faster courts, even today. Take a look at the Wimbledon semis and finals from 2003. A masterpiece of attacking talent.

he would have fewer majors if fast hard and grass courts were still around..he'd wouldn't reach as many balls as they zoomed off the surface.

I thought you were kidding at first. This is just flat out wrong. Federer's always been better at Wimbledon and the USO than he has been at AO and RG. And that remains true today where his only realistic chances are at the latter 2 slams. If the USO has slowed down it's only been the last couple years so I won't say he'd have won another 1 or 2 there. AO they changed in 08 but from what I remember the speed is similar but higher bouncing which obviously doesn't favor Roger. Wimbledon ironically is the one that changed most drastically and despite having 7 it did not change to Roger's favor. Greed or not I think he damn well could have 8 or 9 if they were playing on the faster slick grass of the 90's.

 

[Front242]

Man, I miss Gonzo on tour. What a tournament he played in 2007

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBOeQayp26A

I miss him, too. While I understand your wanting to show how he beat Rafa, his match against Haas, in the semifinal, was even more impressive. In fact, when Gonzalez retired a reporter asked him which was his most memorable match, and he picked this one.

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lR92UVCZV0[/video]

Cheers for the video. I was searching earlier for clips to show what I believed made the bounce look totally different (much lower and therefore aiding power/flat hitters) on the older Rebound Ace surface and saw people mentioning the ridiculously low UFE count Gonzalez had against Haas that day and tbh I think I must've have missed that match when they played but I'm amazed by the stats. Didn't actually post the video just for the sake of showing Gonzo beat Nadal, merely came up when I searched on Youtube. Here are the stats of that Gonzalez victory against Haas. I'm stunned and also wish I'd seen the whole match. Don't think I've seen stats that good against a top opponent in a long time. 42 winners to 3 (!) UFEs for Gonzalez against Haas! 87% first serve % Incredible. Totally crushed poor Tommy and can see now why he claims it was his most memorable match. Wow.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2007/01/26/tennis-open-gonzalez-statistics-idUKSYD3386120070126

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

Federer is lucky all the courts are slower than in olden days..

gives him a chance to move his Zimmerframe into position before slapping the ball back.

Not sure if you are serious here but had they not slowed down Wimbledon, AO and the USO, in my opinion Roger would very likely be sitting on 20+ slams and still be #1 right now. I think he would prefer it to be like in the 90s instead of having to torture himself in brutal baseline wars on pretty mich every surface he enters these days with a ridiculous mileage on his body. I can only imagine how great his first strike tennis would have looked like on much faster courts, even today. Take a look at the Wimbledon semis and finals from 2003. A masterpiece of attacking talent.

he would have fewer majors if fast hard and grass courts were still around..he'd wouldn't reach as many balls as they zoomed off the surface.

you don't know what you are talking about... what you said applies to defensive players.

don't be silly, slower players don't want fast surfaces..the balls gone past then before they know it.

---

Federer is lucky all the courts are slower than in olden days..

gives him a chance to move his Zimmerframe into position before slapping the ball back.

Not sure if you are serious here but had they not slowed down Wimbledon, AO and the USO, in my opinion Roger would very likely be sitting on 20+ slams and still be #1 right now. I think he would prefer it to be like in the 90s instead of having to torture himself in brutal baseline wars on pretty mich every surface he enters these days with a ridiculous mileage on his body. I can only imagine how great his first strike tennis would have looked like on much faster courts, even today. Take a look at the Wimbledon semis and finals from 2003. A masterpiece of attacking talent.

he would have fewer majors if fast hard and grass courts were still around..he'd wouldn't reach as many balls as they zoomed off the surface.

I thought you were kidding at first. This is just flat out wrong. Federer's always been better at Wimbledon and the USO than he has been at AO and RG. And that remains true today where his only realistic chances are at the latter 2 slams. If the USO has slowed down it's only been the last couple years so I won't say he'd have won another 1 or 2 there. AO they changed in 08 but from what I remember the speed is similar but higher bouncing which obviously doesn't favor Roger. Wimbledon ironically is the one that changed most drastically and despite having 7 it did not change to Roger's favor. Greed or not I think he damn well could have 8 or 9 if they were playing on the faster slick grass of the 90's.

you are living in a dreamworld..the fact Federer has been better on slower grass dosnt mean he is going to be better on faster grass. he is not.

he would get destroyed. apart from being slower and unable to reach balls as much..his volleying isn't even all that great.

---

Federer is lucky all the courts are slower than in olden days..

gives him a chance to move his Zimmerframe into position before slapping the ball back.

Not sure if you are serious here but had they not slowed down Wimbledon, AO and the USO, in my opinion Roger would very likely be sitting on 20+ slams and still be #1 right now. I think he would prefer it to be like in the 90s instead of having to torture himself in brutal baseline wars on pretty mich every surface he enters these days with a ridiculous mileage on his body. I can only imagine how great his first strike tennis would have looked like on much faster courts, even today. Take a look at the Wimbledon semis and finals from 2003. A masterpiece of attacking talent.

he would have fewer majors if fast hard and grass courts were still around..he'd wouldn't reach as many balls as they zoomed off the surface.

Maybe now that he's almost 32 that's true but he'd have won many more that escaped him earlier if courts were faster imo. I reckon a lot of the shanks we're seeing now are just because his reaction speed has dropped ever so slightly. Once in a while of course everything clicks like Cincy 2012 and he's just on fire but it's few and far between these days.

yes his timing is a bit slower sometimes so we get shankerer a lot more, that's the same reason he'd not win on old school grass or carpet..like I said in last poast..

Federer could win on any surface in his prime he was a super fit, quick, precise, mentally strong winning machine..only all time clay great nadal stopped him winning 2 or 3 year grand slams (along with kuerten in 04 :s)

 

[Ricardo]

Federer is lucky all the courts are slower than in olden days..

gives him a chance to move his Zimmerframe into position before slapping the ball back.

Not sure if you are serious here but had they not slowed down Wimbledon, AO and the USO, in my opinion Roger would very likely be sitting on 20+ slams and still be #1 right now. I think he would prefer it to be like in the 90s instead of having to torture himself in brutal baseline wars on pretty mich every surface he enters these days with a ridiculous mileage on his body. I can only imagine how great his first strike tennis would have looked like on much faster courts, even today. Take a look at the Wimbledon semis and finals from 2003. A masterpiece of attacking talent.

he would have fewer majors if fast hard and grass courts were still around..he'd wouldn't reach as many balls as they zoomed off the surface.

you don't know what you are talking about... what you said applies to defensive players.

don't be silly, slower players don't want fast surfaces..the balls gone past then before they know it.

---

Federer is lucky all the courts are slower than in olden days..

gives him a chance to move his Zimmerframe into position before slapping the ball back.

Not sure if you are serious here but had they not slowed down Wimbledon, AO and the USO, in my opinion Roger would very likely be sitting on 20+ slams and still be #1 right now. I think he would prefer it to be like in the 90s instead of having to torture himself in brutal baseline wars on pretty mich every surface he enters these days with a ridiculous mileage on his body. I can only imagine how great his first strike tennis would have looked like on much faster courts, even today. Take a look at the Wimbledon semis and finals from 2003. A masterpiece of attacking talent.

he would have fewer majors if fast hard and grass courts were still around..he'd wouldn't reach as many balls as they zoomed off the surface.

I thought you were kidding at first. This is just flat out wrong. Federer's always been better at Wimbledon and the USO than he has been at AO and RG. And that remains true today where his only realistic chances are at the latter 2 slams. If the USO has slowed down it's only been the last couple years so I won't say he'd have won another 1 or 2 there. AO they changed in 08 but from what I remember the speed is similar but higher bouncing which obviously doesn't favor Roger. Wimbledon ironically is the one that changed most drastically and despite having 7 it did not change to Roger's favor. Greed or not I think he damn well could have 8 or 9 if they were playing on the faster slick grass of the 90's.

you are living in a dreamworld..the fact Federer has been better on slower grass dosnt mean he is going to be better on faster grass. he is not.

he would get destroyed. apart from being slower and unable to reach balls as much..his volleying isn't even all that great.

---

Federer is lucky all the courts are slower than in olden days..

gives him a chance to move his Zimmerframe into position before slapping the ball back.

Not sure if you are serious here but had they not slowed down Wimbledon, AO and the USO, in my opinion Roger would very likely be sitting on 20+ slams and still be #1 right now. I think he would prefer it to be like in the 90s instead of having to torture himself in brutal baseline wars on pretty mich every surface he enters these days with a ridiculous mileage on his body. I can only imagine how great his first strike tennis would have looked like on much faster courts, even today. Take a look at the Wimbledon semis and finals from 2003. A masterpiece of attacking talent.

he would have fewer majors if fast hard and grass courts were still around..he'd wouldn't reach as many balls as they zoomed off the surface.

Maybe now that he's almost 32 that's true but he'd have won many more that escaped him earlier if courts were faster imo. I reckon a lot of the shanks we're seeing now are just because his reaction speed has dropped ever so slightly. Once in a while of course everything clicks like Cincy 2012 and he's just on fire but it's few and far between these days.

yes his timing is a bit slower sometimes so we get shankerer a lot more, that's the same reason he'd not win on old school grass or carpet..like I said in last poast..

Federer could win on any surface in his prime he was a super fit, quick, precise, mentally strong winning machine..only all time clay great nadal stopped him winning 2 or 3 year grand slams (along with kuerten in 04 :s)

---

---

you are simply wrong, try looking at his game. It's not simple as 'he is slower so faster surface would trouble him more', the results suggests faster surfaces are where he still has some success. Recently he's done nothing at AO and RG while he is still the defending champion at Wimbledon, made finals at YEC and won some Master1000 on fast hards. A guy with great serve and attacking game always like faster surfaces, look at all the Sampras's, Beckers, Ivanisevics and Roddicks, hell even Karlovics and Isners with no defensive game can only do harm on fast courts. Sorry but saying slowing down surfaces would suit him is hopelessly wrong.

---

Man, I miss Gonzo on tour. What a tournament he played in 2007

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBOeQayp26A

I miss him, too. While I understand your wanting to show how he beat Rafa, his match against Haas, in the semifinal, was even more impressive. In fact, when Gonzalez retired a reporter asked him which was his most memorable match, and he picked this one.

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lR92UVCZV0[/video]

Cheers for the video. I was searching earlier for clips to show what I believed made the bounce look totally different (much lower and therefore aiding power/flat hitters) on the older Rebound Ace surface and saw people mentioning the ridiculously low UFE count Gonzalez had against Haas that day and tbh I think I must've have missed that match when they played but I'm amazed by the stats. Didn't actually post the video just for the sake of showing Gonzo beat Nadal, merely came up when I searched on Youtube. Here are the stats of that Gonzalez victory against Haas. I'm stunned and also wish I'd seen the whole match. Don't think I've seen stats that good against a top opponent in a long time. 42 winners to 3 (!) UFEs for Gonzalez against Haas! 87% first serve % Incredible. Totally crushed poor Tommy and can see now why he claims it was his most memorable match. Wow.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2007/01/26/tennis-open-gonzalez-statistics-idUKSYD3386120070126

Gonzo was obviously in the zone, nobody puts that kind of stats against Haas who was himself in good form making it into the semi's. It's incredible that he actually had zero UFE in the first set with 16 winners, and he did it on a slower surface against a fairly good opponent. The current big 4 are good, but the guys back then could put in unbelievable performances even they can't match. Obviously nerves got to Gonzo when he got to the final against Fed, which is a pity.

 

[DarthFed]

Federer is lucky all the courts are slower than in olden days..

gives him a chance to move his Zimmerframe into position before slapping the ball back.

Not sure if you are serious here but had they not slowed down Wimbledon, AO and the USO, in my opinion Roger would very likely be sitting on 20+ slams and still be #1 right now. I think he would prefer it to be like in the 90s instead of having to torture himself in brutal baseline wars on pretty mich every surface he enters these days with a ridiculous mileage on his body. I can only imagine how great his first strike tennis would have looked like on much faster courts, even today. Take a look at the Wimbledon semis and finals from 2003. A masterpiece of attacking talent.

he would have fewer majors if fast hard and grass courts were still around..he'd wouldn't reach as many balls as they zoomed off the surface.

you don't know what you are talking about... what you said applies to defensive players.

don't be silly, slower players don't want fast surfaces..the balls gone past then before they know it.

---

Federer is lucky all the courts are slower than in olden days..

gives him a chance to move his Zimmerframe into position before slapping the ball back.

Not sure if you are serious here but had they not slowed down Wimbledon, AO and the USO, in my opinion Roger would very likely be sitting on 20+ slams and still be #1 right now. I think he would prefer it to be like in the 90s instead of having to torture himself in brutal baseline wars on pretty mich every surface he enters these days with a ridiculous mileage on his body. I can only imagine how great his first strike tennis would have looked like on much faster courts, even today. Take a look at the Wimbledon semis and finals from 2003. A masterpiece of attacking talent.

he would have fewer majors if fast hard and grass courts were still around..he'd wouldn't reach as many balls as they zoomed off the surface.

I thought you were kidding at first. This is just flat out wrong. Federer's always been better at Wimbledon and the USO than he has been at AO and RG. And that remains true today where his only realistic chances are at the latter 2 slams. If the USO has slowed down it's only been the last couple years so I won't say he'd have won another 1 or 2 there. AO they changed in 08 but from what I remember the speed is similar but higher bouncing which obviously doesn't favor Roger. Wimbledon ironically is the one that changed most drastically and despite having 7 it did not change to Roger's favor. Greed or not I think he damn well could have 8 or 9 if they were playing on the faster slick grass of the 90's.

you are living in a dreamworld..the fact Federer has been better on slower grass dosnt mean he is going to be better on faster grass. he is not.

he would get destroyed. apart from being slower and unable to reach balls as much..his volleying isn't even all that great.

---

Federer is lucky all the courts are slower than in olden days..

gives him a chance to move his Zimmerframe into position before slapping the ball back.

Not sure if you are serious here but had they not slowed down Wimbledon, AO and the USO, in my opinion Roger would very likely be sitting on 20+ slams and still be #1 right now. I think he would prefer it to be like in the 90s instead of having to torture himself in brutal baseline wars on pretty mich every surface he enters these days with a ridiculous mileage on his body. I can only imagine how great his first strike tennis would have looked like on much faster courts, even today. Take a look at the Wimbledon semis and finals from 2003. A masterpiece of attacking talent.

he would have fewer majors if fast hard and grass courts were still around..he'd wouldn't reach as many balls as they zoomed off the surface.

Maybe now that he's almost 32 that's true but he'd have won many more that escaped him earlier if courts were faster imo. I reckon a lot of the shanks we're seeing now are just because his reaction speed has dropped ever so slightly. Once in a while of course everything clicks like Cincy 2012 and he's just on fire but it's few and far between these days.

yes his timing is a bit slower sometimes so we get shankerer a lot more, that's the same reason he'd not win on old school grass or carpet..like I said in last poast..

Federer could win on any surface in his prime he was a super fit, quick, precise, mentally strong winning machine..only all time clay great nadal stopped him winning 2 or 3 year grand slams (along with kuerten in 04 :s)

---

---

Roger is slower than he used to be by a big margin but I wouldn't call him slow. The faster and lower bouncing the court, the better his chances against the other elite players. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Look how Roger played at Wimbledon with the roof closed last year when conditions were much quicker. Put this year's Wimbledon on 90's grass and he might still be the favorite to win it. Now compare that to AO or RG where he has pretty much no chance against Nadal or Djokovic at this point.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

Not sure if you are serious here but had they not slowed down Wimbledon, AO and the USO, in my opinion Roger would very likely be sitting on 20+ slams and still be #1 right now. I think he would prefer it to be like in the 90s instead of having to torture himself in brutal baseline wars on pretty mich every surface he enters these days with a ridiculous mileage on his body. I can only imagine how great his first strike tennis would have looked like on much faster courts, even today. Take a look at the Wimbledon semis and finals from 2003. A masterpiece of attacking talent.

he would have fewer majors if fast hard and grass courts were still around..he'd wouldn't reach as many balls as they zoomed off the surface.

you don't know what you are talking about... what you said applies to defensive players.

don't be silly, slower players don't want fast surfaces..the balls gone past then before they know it.

---

Not sure if you are serious here but had they not slowed down Wimbledon, AO and the USO, in my opinion Roger would very likely be sitting on 20+ slams and still be #1 right now. I think he would prefer it to be like in the 90s instead of having to torture himself in brutal baseline wars on pretty mich every surface he enters these days with a ridiculous mileage on his body. I can only imagine how great his first strike tennis would have looked like on much faster courts, even today. Take a look at the Wimbledon semis and finals from 2003. A masterpiece of attacking talent.

he would have fewer majors if fast hard and grass courts were still around..he'd wouldn't reach as many balls as they zoomed off the surface.

I thought you were kidding at first. This is just flat out wrong. Federer's always been better at Wimbledon and the USO than he has been at AO and RG. And that remains true today where his only realistic chances are at the latter 2 slams. If the USO has slowed down it's only been the last couple years so I won't say he'd have won another 1 or 2 there. AO they changed in 08 but from what I remember the speed is similar but higher bouncing which obviously doesn't favor Roger. Wimbledon ironically is the one that changed most drastically and despite having 7 it did not change to Roger's favor. Greed or not I think he damn well could have 8 or 9 if they were playing on the faster slick grass of the 90's.

you are living in a dreamworld..the fact Federer has been better on slower grass dosnt mean he is going to be better on faster grass. he is not.

he would get destroyed. apart from being slower and unable to reach balls as much..his volleying isn't even all that great.

---

Not sure if you are serious here but had they not slowed down Wimbledon, AO and the USO, in my opinion Roger would very likely be sitting on 20+ slams and still be #1 right now. I think he would prefer it to be like in the 90s instead of having to torture himself in brutal baseline wars on pretty mich every surface he enters these days with a ridiculous mileage on his body. I can only imagine how great his first strike tennis would have looked like on much faster courts, even today. Take a look at the Wimbledon semis and finals from 2003. A masterpiece of attacking talent.

he would have fewer majors if fast hard and grass courts were still around..he'd wouldn't reach as many balls as they zoomed off the surface.

Maybe now that he's almost 32 that's true but he'd have won many more that escaped him earlier if courts were faster imo. I reckon a lot of the shanks we're seeing now are just because his reaction speed has dropped ever so slightly. Once in a while of course everything clicks like Cincy 2012 and he's just on fire but it's few and far between these days.

yes his timing is a bit slower sometimes so we get shankerer a lot more, that's the same reason he'd not win on old school grass or carpet..like I said in last poast..

Federer could win on any surface in his prime he was a super fit, quick, precise, mentally strong winning machine..only all time clay great nadal stopped him winning 2 or 3 year grand slams (along with kuerten in 04 :s)

---

---

Roger is slower than he used to be by a big margin but I wouldn't call him slow. The faster and lower bouncing the court, the better his chances against the other elite players. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Look how Roger played at Wimbledon with the roof closed last year when conditions were much quicker. Put this year's Wimbledon on 90's grass and he might still be the favorite to win it. Now compare that to AO or RG where he has pretty much no chance against Nadal or Djokovic at this point.

---

---

conditions wernt quicker..murray was spent, his level went down, and his serve went down the pan..he wasn't fully fit with his back problem and was tired from long qf and sf matches.

put Federer on 90s grass now and he would not win the title.

 

[Front242]

he would have fewer majors if fast hard and grass courts were still around..he'd wouldn't reach as many balls as they zoomed off the surface.

you don't know what you are talking about... what you said applies to defensive players.

don't be silly, slower players don't want fast surfaces..the balls gone past then before they know it.

---

he would have fewer majors if fast hard and grass courts were still around..he'd wouldn't reach as many balls as they zoomed off the surface.

I thought you were kidding at first. This is just flat out wrong. Federer's always been better at Wimbledon and the USO than he has been at AO and RG. And that remains true today where his only realistic chances are at the latter 2 slams. If the USO has slowed down it's only been the last couple years so I won't say he'd have won another 1 or 2 there. AO they changed in 08 but from what I remember the speed is similar but higher bouncing which obviously doesn't favor Roger. Wimbledon ironically is the one that changed most drastically and despite having 7 it did not change to Roger's favor. Greed or not I think he damn well could have 8 or 9 if they were playing on the faster slick grass of the 90's.

you are living in a dreamworld..the fact Federer has been better on slower grass dosnt mean he is going to be better on faster grass. he is not.

he would get destroyed. apart from being slower and unable to reach balls as much..his volleying isn't even all that great.

---

he would have fewer majors if fast hard and grass courts were still around..he'd wouldn't reach as many balls as they zoomed off the surface.

Maybe now that he's almost 32 that's true but he'd have won many more that escaped him earlier if courts were faster imo. I reckon a lot of the shanks we're seeing now are just because his reaction speed has dropped ever so slightly. Once in a while of course everything clicks like Cincy 2012 and he's just on fire but it's few and far between these days.

yes his timing is a bit slower sometimes so we get shankerer a lot more, that's the same reason he'd not win on old school grass or carpet..like I said in last poast..

Federer could win on any surface in his prime he was a super fit, quick, precise, mentally strong winning machine..only all time clay great nadal stopped him winning 2 or 3 year grand slams (along with kuerten in 04 :s)

---

---

Roger is slower than he used to be by a big margin but I wouldn't call him slow. The faster and lower bouncing the court, the better his chances against the other elite players. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Look how Roger played at Wimbledon with the roof closed last year when conditions were much quicker. Put this year's Wimbledon on 90's grass and he might still be the favorite to win it. Now compare that to AO or RG where he has pretty much no chance against Nadal or Djokovic at this point.

---

---

conditions wernt quicker..murray was spent, his level went down, and his serve went down the pan..he wasn't fully fit with his back problem and was tired from long qf and sf matches.

put Federer on 90s grass now and he would not win the title.

---

---

Er sorry but Murray wasn't spent, merely a broken man once he saw how Federer stole the match away from him. Murray was the better player for all set 1 and up until Fed broke to take set 2. Two amazing points by Federer at the tail end of set 2 to break Murray changed the whole dynamic of the match. From there on Fed was just playing too well for Murray. Murray was in no way not fully fit, in fact Federer had more back problems in Wimbledon 2012 than Murray did. Remember his back against Malisse? Only the 2nd time in his whole career that he's actually used a medical timeout and it was a clearly legit one at that as he was visibly in bits against Malisse before that. Also Federer had a very tough match against Benneteau and was in no way fresher than Murray. You're clutching at straws bigtime there with excuses for Murray who had played a blinder in the final up until the point where Fed broke to take set 2. Also the closed roof didn't just help Federer as Murray himself plays well with the roof closed. Remember his comeback against Gasquet a few years ago from 2 sets down?

Federer did the same thing against Haas in RG 2009, except back there Haas was up 2 sets to 0 and 4-4 and one point changed the whole match. Haas didn't lose 'cos his back was at him, he was spent, etc. Anyway this year Murray will come in very fresh and a huge contender for the Wimbledon title imo. Bookies have Djokovic as top favourite, which imo is ridiculous. I'd put Murray there.

 

[Haelfix]

Federer is an all around player, and naturally his game is suited to grass (both fast and slow).

Early in his career he benefited from some of the slowdown on the courts, bc slower courts tend to produce more consistent results. The fact that he almost never lost is a direct byproduct of those conditions..

On fast grass, even champions like Roger and Pete are vulnerable to an inferior hot streak server or big hitter, so you would get more upsets, even though his game is more natural on fast surfaces.

The flipside is that he likely has lost a few more slams as an older player bc of the slowdown in conditions which favored younger more consistent baseliners.

Of course that he would still have won (and won a lot) in the 90s on fast surfaces. Very few players have the type of attacking acumen.

 

[Ricardo]

he would have fewer majors if fast hard and grass courts were still around..he'd wouldn't reach as many balls as they zoomed off the surface.

you don't know what you are talking about... what you said applies to defensive players.

don't be silly, slower players don't want fast surfaces..the balls gone past then before they know it.

---

he would have fewer majors if fast hard and grass courts were still around..he'd wouldn't reach as many balls as they zoomed off the surface.

I thought you were kidding at first. This is just flat out wrong. Federer's always been better at Wimbledon and the USO than he has been at AO and RG. And that remains true today where his only realistic chances are at the latter 2 slams. If the USO has slowed down it's only been the last couple years so I won't say he'd have won another 1 or 2 there. AO they changed in 08 but from what I remember the speed is similar but higher bouncing which obviously doesn't favor Roger. Wimbledon ironically is the one that changed most drastically and despite having 7 it did not change to Roger's favor. Greed or not I think he damn well could have 8 or 9 if they were playing on the faster slick grass of the 90's.

you are living in a dreamworld..the fact Federer has been better on slower grass dosnt mean he is going to be better on faster grass. he is not.

he would get destroyed. apart from being slower and unable to reach balls as much..his volleying isn't even all that great.

---

he would have fewer majors if fast hard and grass courts were still around..he'd wouldn't reach as many balls as they zoomed off the surface.

Maybe now that he's almost 32 that's true but he'd have won many more that escaped him earlier if courts were faster imo. I reckon a lot of the shanks we're seeing now are just because his reaction speed has dropped ever so slightly. Once in a while of course everything clicks like Cincy 2012 and he's just on fire but it's few and far between these days.

yes his timing is a bit slower sometimes so we get shankerer a lot more, that's the same reason he'd not win on old school grass or carpet..like I said in last poast..

Federer could win on any surface in his prime he was a super fit, quick, precise, mentally strong winning machine..only all time clay great nadal stopped him winning 2 or 3 year grand slams (along with kuerten in 04 :s)

---

---

Roger is slower than he used to be by a big margin but I wouldn't call him slow. The faster and lower bouncing the court, the better his chances against the other elite players. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Look how Roger played at Wimbledon with the roof closed last year when conditions were much quicker. Put this year's Wimbledon on 90's grass and he might still be the favorite to win it. Now compare that to AO or RG where he has pretty much no chance against Nadal or Djokovic at this point.

---

---

conditions wernt quicker..murray was spent, his level went down, and his serve went down the pan..he wasn't fully fit with his back problem and was tired from long qf and sf matches.

put Federer on 90s grass now and he would not win the title.

---

---

still don't get it? slow and attacking players want fast surfaces, they don't camp behind the baseline slugging it out in 20+ shots rallies. They pump out aces and hit winners any chance they got, the average rally doesn't last more 4-5 shots. What do you think slow players do? you think they excel when surfaces slow down? slow guys like Karlovic and Isner only know one way to win, they blow their serves or fh past the opponents for winners, and that works best when court is fast. Understand?

Secondly, what evidence do you have when you state it like a fact? have you seen Fed play in the 90s? or you really have to mouth off to feel smart?

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

you don't know what you are talking about... what you said applies to defensive players.

don't be silly, slower players don't want fast surfaces..the balls gone past then before they know it.

---

I thought you were kidding at first. This is just flat out wrong. Federer's always been better at Wimbledon and the USO than he has been at AO and RG. And that remains true today where his only realistic chances are at the latter 2 slams. If the USO has slowed down it's only been the last couple years so I won't say he'd have won another 1 or 2 there. AO they changed in 08 but from what I remember the speed is similar but higher bouncing which obviously doesn't favor Roger. Wimbledon ironically is the one that changed most drastically and despite having 7 it did not change to Roger's favor. Greed or not I think he damn well could have 8 or 9 if they were playing on the faster slick grass of the 90's.

you are living in a dreamworld..the fact Federer has been better on slower grass dosnt mean he is going to be better on faster grass. he is not.

he would get destroyed. apart from being slower and unable to reach balls as much..his volleying isn't even all that great.

---

Maybe now that he's almost 32 that's true but he'd have won many more that escaped him earlier if courts were faster imo. I reckon a lot of the shanks we're seeing now are just because his reaction speed has dropped ever so slightly. Once in a while of course everything clicks like Cincy 2012 and he's just on fire but it's few and far between these days.

yes his timing is a bit slower sometimes so we get shankerer a lot more, that's the same reason he'd not win on old school grass or carpet..like I said in last poast..

Federer could win on any surface in his prime he was a super fit, quick, precise, mentally strong winning machine..only all time clay great nadal stopped him winning 2 or 3 year grand slams (along with kuerten in 04 :s)

---

---

Roger is slower than he used to be by a big margin but I wouldn't call him slow. The faster and lower bouncing the court, the better his chances against the other elite players. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Look how Roger played at Wimbledon with the roof closed last year when conditions were much quicker. Put this year's Wimbledon on 90's grass and he might still be the favorite to win it. Now compare that to AO or RG where he has pretty much no chance against Nadal or Djokovic at this point.

---

---

conditions wernt quicker..murray was spent, his level went down, and his serve went down the pan..he wasn't fully fit with his back problem and was tired from long qf and sf matches.

put Federer on 90s grass now and he would not win the title.

---

---

still don't get it? slow and attacking players want fast surfaces, they don't camp behind the baseline slugging it out in 20+ shots rallies. They pump out aces and hit winners any chance they got, the average rally doesn't last more 4-5 shots. What do you think slow players do? you think they excel when surfaces slow down? slow guys like Karlovic and Isner only know one way to win, they blow their serves or fh past the opponents for winners, and that works best when court is fast. Understand?

Secondly, what evidence do you have when you state it like a fact? have you seen Fed play in the 90s? or you really have to mouth off to feel smart?

---

---

we are talking about Federer, don't start dribbling on about isner, you are clueless enough on tennis as it is without expanding your lack of understanding other players,

I know big servers like faster courts..thats got nothing to do with a slower than prime Federer not reaching or being in position to hit the ball ??, DUH..wakey wakey sunshine :idea: get a clue, wow, what a dreary noise. :laydownlaughing

the fact remains you are wrong about Federer and feeling butthurt is not going to change anything, players just get slower and you having a wet dream about old players winning on fast grass/ hc is not going to change that..

Federer has a chance to win u s open / Wimbledon this year, fast courts would've meant nothing for increased chances of winning..

but you keep having fun being an unloved painting in the spare room, big boy.

 

[Didi]

[.......]
Bookies have Djokovic as top favourite, which imo is ridiculous. I'd put Murray there.

Totally agree with you about the Fed-Murray final but I think you are a bit harsh here. To be fair to the bookies (or rather the people who put money on Djokovic and as a result making him the favorite) this upcoming Wimbledon is going to be as open a slam as it possibly gets these days. There is just no clear favorite. Question marks over everybody. Djokovic always struggled on grass, especially with his movement. Murray comes back after an injury and while he might be physically fresh it remains to be seen how his back will respond to best of 5. And there is still the pressure he faces there, all the expectations on his shoulders, now more than ever after winning his first major.

Nadal may have all the confidence in the world going into SW19 but he looked more and more tired the last couple of weeks and is yet to pull off a convincing performance on grass since beating Del Potro in the 4th round of 2011. Plus he's very prone to upsets in the first week of the tournament. Being seeded as #5 surely won't increase his chances. Finally Roger who struggled all season and although still easily capable of winning another trophy, he might as well get blown away by Tsonga or Berdych before the semis even start.

As a result, when there is no favorite, people (especially the ones who bet for fun) will put their money on the world #1 which still (rightly) is Djokovic. Whether or not this reflects the true 'power rankings' as we are heading into the tournament, is a different question altogether. But Djoker being #1 favorite is the logical choice at the moment. You might think that's ridiculous given that he made the finals only once in his career, fair enough, but I don't see how you can justify putting someone else above him. Murray might be the better grass court player on paper but that's exactly the problem...on paper. At this moment in time I just can't see Murray being the #1 favorite going into any slam.

 

[Front242]

[.......]
Bookies have Djokovic as top favourite, which imo is ridiculous. I'd put Murray there.

Totally agree with you about the Fed-Murray final but I think you are a bit harsh here. To be fair to the bookies (or rather the people who put money on Djokovic and as a result making him the favorite) this upcoming Wimbledon is going to be as open a slam as it possibly gets these days. There is just no clear favorite. Question marks over everybody. Djokovic always struggled on grass, especially with his movement. Murray comes back after an injury and while he might be physically fresh it remains to be seen how his back will respond to best of 5. And there is still the pressure he faces there, all the expectations on his shoulders, now more than ever after winning his first major.

Nadal may have all the confidence in the world going into SW19 but he looked more and more tired the last couple of weeks and is yet to pull off a convincing performance on grass since beating Del Potro in the 4th round of 2011. Plus he's very prone to upsets in the first week of the tournament. Being seeded as #5 surely won't increase his chances. Finally Roger who struggled all season and although still easily capable of winning another trophy, he might as well get blown away by Tsonga or Berdych before the semis even start.

As a result, when there is no favorite, people (especially the ones who bet for fun) will put their money on the world #1 which still (rightly) is Djokovic. Whether or not this reflects the true 'power rankings' as we are heading into the tournament, is a different question altogether. But Djoker being #1 favorite is the logical choice at the moment. You might think that's ridiculous given that he made the finals only once in his career, fair enough, but I don't see how you can justify putting someone else above him. Murray might be the better grass court player on paper but that's exactly the problem...on paper. At this moment in time I just can't see Murray being the #1 favorite going into any slam.

I agree Murray shouldn't be considered the #1 favourite in any slam and mentioned the same scenarios you did re Fed and big hitters, Nadal in week 1, grass being Djokovic's worst surface, etc but the thing is, while Murray often loses the first set and goes on to win matches, he is imo, the least likely to be prone to an early upset which is why I'd consider him pretty much right up there this year in terms of contenders. He's been far more consistent over the years there than Djokovic despite having failed to win the title. In any case I'll be hoping Fed gets a decent draw this year and we haven't long to wait and see how it all pans out.

 

[Moxie]

^I also agree with much of Didi's assessment, and that this one is pretty open, however, I think it's an exaggeration to say that Nadal is "prone" to upset in the early rounds. I would say he has looked susceptible in some of the first weeks, but two 2nd round losses bookending 5 final appearances since 2005 doesn't seem "prone" to it, to me. Sorry if that seems like parsing words, but I think you've said it, too, Front and maybe others, and I don't think it deserves to become a "truism."

 

[Front242]

^I also agree with much of Didi's assessment, and that this one is pretty open, however, I think it's an exaggeration to say that Nadal is "prone" to upset in the early rounds. I would say he has looked susceptible in some of the first weeks, but two 2nd round losses bookending 5 final appearances since 2005 doesn't seem "prone" to it, to me. Sorry if that seems like parsing words, but I think you've said it, too, Front and maybe others, and I don't think it deserves to become a "truism."

Sorry Moxie, yes prone is the wrong word and susceptible is much more apt.

 

[Postpre]

Nadal may have all the confidence in the world going into SW19 but he looked more and more tired the last couple of weeks and is yet to pull off a convincing performance on grass since beating Del Potro in the 4th round of 2011.

Nadal's semifinal against Murray in 2011 was also convincing, IMO.

 

[Front242]

Nadal may have all the confidence in the world going into SW19 but he looked more and more tired the last couple of weeks and is yet to pull off a convincing performance on grass since beating Del Potro in the 4th round of 2011.

Nadal's semifinal against Murray in 2011 was also convincing, IMO.

Regarding looking tired I think it's safe to say there's no point reading anything into that after seeing the Verdasco match in '09. And he has loads of time to rest now as they all do before Wimbledon kicks off.

 

[Kieran]

^I also agree with much of Didi's assessment, and that this one is pretty open, however, I think it's an exaggeration to say that Nadal is "prone" to upset in the early rounds. I would say he has looked susceptible in some of the first weeks, but two 2nd round losses bookending 5 final appearances since 2005 doesn't seem "prone" to it, to me. Sorry if that seems like parsing words, but I think you've said it, too, Front and maybe others, and I don't think it deserves to become a "truism."

Well said, sista! Every player should be vulnerable early on, if the hungry, ambitious field are doing their work. Nadal will certainly only be as vulnerable as anyone else, though his cause isn't helped by having no pre-W warm-up.

But yeah, you get that a lot, stuff repeated so often it becomes some kind of Bizarro-world truism. You see it and I see it and that's good enough for me!

 

[Didi]

Moxie, I didn't want to sell him short on grass. He's a fine grass court player with 5 wimbledon finals under his belt but historically he's struggled over the years in the first week of the tournament when the bounce of the ball is lower, the grass courts much faster and his ROS and top spin not as effective. He was taken to 5 sets by Kendrick, Soderling, Youzhny, Haase, Petzschner and Rosol over the years in the first week when his ROS suffers the most due to the bounce and his backswing motion.

As soon as he gets some grip on the courts when they start to evolve into partly dirt courts from the baseline with a much higher bounce, he's incredibly tough to beat. Then he's got the time to set up his topspin and to position himself in time to run around his forehand which makes his inside out so heavy and is just exploding off the court. From that moment on he never looks back. I don't think that's a myth or some "bizarro-world truism" (whatever that is) at all, just my opinion, but nevermind. Wimbledon starts in 7 days, soon we'll find out. It's off-topic anyway.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Nadal may have all the confidence in the world going into SW19 but he looked more and more tired the last couple of weeks and is yet to pull off a convincing performance on grass since beating Del Potro in the 4th round of 2011.

Nadal's semifinal against Murray in 2011 was also convincing, IMO.

Regarding looking tired I think it's safe to say there's no point reading anything into that after seeing the Verdasco match in '09. And he has loads of time to rest now as they all do before Wimbledon kicks off.

I agree he shouldn't be tired at all, but bringing up the Verdasco match? That was 4 years and two serious injuries ago.