Generation Federer

[Haelfix]

It does put to question the sometimes mooted view that there was no competition in Roger's era. For my part I've always maintained the dirth of achievement amongst the other constituents in that era, was simply because Roger really was that good.

I think that's pretty obvious.

I actually think surface homogenization (at least the beginning of it) hurt Federer's generation more than others and helped Federer early in his career.

Watching the exposition in India where they are using really fast courts and what seems like old balls, you can really tell just how different the play is compared to modern grindfests. It's hard to see how some of the elite ballstrikers of Federers generation wouldn't have scored some upsets over Roger and co under those conditions.

Consider that it wasn't really until the claycourts were sped up, that Roger started consistently going through to the finals in those events. In 02-04 he was considered marginal at best on that surface.

 

[brokenshoelace]

It does put to question the sometimes mooted view that there was no competition in Roger's era. For my part I've always maintained the dirth of achievement amongst the other constituents in that era, was simply because Roger really was that good.

I think that's pretty obvious.

I actually think surface homogenization (at least the beginning of it) hurt Federer's generation more than others and helped Federer early in his career.

Watching the exposition in India where they are using really fast courts and what seems like old balls, you can really tell just how different the play is compared to modern grindfests. It's hard to see how some of the elite ballstrikers of Federers generation wouldn't have scored some upsets over Roger and co under those conditions.

Consider that it wasn't really until the claycourts were sped up, that Roger started consistently going through to the finals in those events. In 02-04 he was considered marginal at best on that surface.

That's a great point and one we only ever hear from the other side of the coin, and that is that surface homogenization helps Roger's competition now (Nadal, Djokovic) and hurts Roger, which is true, don't get me wrong. But at the same time, I don't see how Nalbandian, Safin, Blake, Davydenko (and hell, I'd throw in Hewitt) wouldn't have scored a few upsets under faster conditions.

 

[Federberg]

It's tough to say how much homogeneity of courts has helped Roger on clay, but I would certainly agree that it probably explains some of his success on that surface. The weird thing is.. and correct me if I'm wrong.. that Hamburg used to be one of the slower clay surfaces, yet somehow he seemed to post decent results there. I really don't know what to think. The one area where I would disagree is that I believe that faster surfaces would have benefitted Roger against the current generation and Generation Federer. The guy has posted the best results of all time for fast indoors for example. Also his record at the US Open which doesn't seem to be as fast as it used to be is proof of his superiority on that type of surface. I do agree however that surface homogenization may well have benefitted Federer against his own generation but works against him now. I guess we shouldn't feel too sorry for him!

 

[DarthFed]

It does put to question the sometimes mooted view that there was no competition in Roger's era. For my part I've always maintained the dirth of achievement amongst the other constituents in that era, was simply because Roger really was that good.

I think that's pretty obvious.

I actually think surface homogenization (at least the beginning of it) hurt Federer's generation more than others and helped Federer early in his career.

Watching the exposition in India where they are using really fast courts and what seems like old balls, you can really tell just how different the play is compared to modern grindfests. It's hard to see how some of the elite ballstrikers of Federers generation wouldn't have scored some upsets over Roger and co under those conditions.

Consider that it wasn't really until the claycourts were sped up, that Roger started consistently going through to the finals in those events. In 02-04 he was considered marginal at best on that surface.

He also didn't totally breakout until 2004. And in 2004 he was still ultra-aggressive which isn't usually going to get it done on clay. Roger really developed more on clay in 2005 and 2006, better point construction, baseline consistency, etc. I don't think RG has sped up throughout the years, certainly not much if it has, the lone exception being 2011 when they used different balls which made it easier to hit through the court.

I don't buy for one second that slowing down the courts has helped Roger in any way. He has always been a monster on fast surfaces even to this day. Yeah he's obviously done awesome despite the courts slowing down but it's hard to picture the likes of Rafa and Djokovic having much of a prayer on the lightning fast grass for instance. Roger's won 7 but I'd like his chances at more with quicker grass, no question. 7 out of 12 is great but there are still 5 that went the other way... And at AO they switched away from Rebound Ace which led to a much higher bounce even if the court speed is similar. And the USO has seemed to slow down in recent years. I think it's kind of out there to think it's helped Roger in any way...

 

[DarthFed]

It's tough to say how much homogeneity of courts has helped Roger on clay, but I would certainly agree that it probably explains some of his success on that surface. The weird thing is.. and correct me if I'm wrong.. that Hamburg used to be one of the slower clay surfaces, yet somehow he seemed to post decent results there. I really don't know what to think. The one area where I would disagree is that I believe that faster surfaces would have benefitted Roger against the current generation and Generation Federer. The guy has posted the best results of all time for fast indoors for example. Also his record at the US Open which doesn't seem to be as fast as it used to be is proof of his superiority on that type of surface. I do agree however that surface homogenization may well have benefitted Federer against his own generation but works against him now. I guess we shouldn't feel too sorry for him!

Hamburg was slow but had a lower bounce. Madrid is a bit faster and also bounces lower than the other clay courts. But it's really the lower bounce that explains why he has had his most success at Hamburg and Madrid IMO.

 

[Federberg]

It's tough to say how much homogeneity of courts has helped Roger on clay, but I would certainly agree that it probably explains some of his success on that surface. The weird thing is.. and correct me if I'm wrong.. that Hamburg used to be one of the slower clay surfaces, yet somehow he seemed to post decent results there. I really don't know what to think. The one area where I would disagree is that I believe that faster surfaces would have benefitted Roger against the current generation and Generation Federer. The guy has posted the best results of all time for fast indoors for example. Also his record at the US Open which doesn't seem to be as fast as it used to be is proof of his superiority on that type of surface. I do agree however that surface homogenization may well have benefitted Federer against his own generation but works against him now. I guess we shouldn't feel too sorry for him!

Hamburg was slow but had a lower bounce. Madrid is a bit faster and also bounces lower than the other clay courts. But it's really the lower bounce that explains why he has had his most success at Hamburg and Madrid IMO.

Yes that makes sense. Lower bounce reduces his vulnerability on the backhand

 

[tented]

The one area where I would disagree is that I believe that faster surfaces would have benefitted Roger against the current generation and Generation Federer. The guy has posted the best results of all time for fast indoors for example.

Actually, McEnroe has the best indoor record of all time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_World_Tour_records#Winning_percentage_per_court_type_2

(Federer is sixth on the list, by the way.)

 

[Federberg]

The one area where I would disagree is that I believe that faster surfaces would have benefitted Roger against the current generation and Generation Federer. The guy has posted the best results of all time for fast indoors for example.

Actually, McEnroe has the best indoor record of all time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_World_Tour_records#Winning_percentage_per_court_type_2

(Federer is sixth on the list, by the way.)

Well received. I think that doesn't do too much damage to my point though

PS, I could have sworn I saw somewhere that when carpet is taken out of the analysis it's Federer not Mac, but I'm not going to trawl around trying to defend that point. Lol!

 

[Kieran]

The one area where I would disagree is that I believe that faster surfaces would have benefitted Roger against the current generation and Generation Federer. The guy has posted the best results of all time for fast indoors for example.

Actually, McEnroe has the best indoor record of all time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_World_Tour_records#Winning_percentage_per_court_type_2

(Federer is sixth on the list, by the way.)

Well received. I think that doesn't do too much damage to my point though

PS, I could have sworn I saw somewhere that when carpet is taken out of the analysis it's Federer not Mac, but I'm not going to trawl around trying to defend that point. Lol!

Great idea! Remove over 400 of McEnroe's indoor matches so we can plant Fed on top... :ras:

 

[brokenshoelace]

I don't buy for one second that slowing down the courts has helped Roger in any way.

Actually it has. As Roger moved towards a more point-construction oriented style in 2005-2006, which you yourself acknowledge in your post, it suited the increasing homogeneity to perfection. There's a reason that despite his brilliance on faster surfaces, he wasn't quite as consistent on all surfaces until 2006 (though obviously still very consistent). Yes, it's because he "peaked," but the word "peak" alone is vague. The question is why did he peak? Because his game became more well rounded, and less reliant on all out attack. Just watch a video of Roger playing in 2003 and see how much more aggressive he was compared to 2006.

His ultra offensive days helped him on faster surfaces to be sure, but it also made him a touch more vulnerable (or I guess "less dominant" is a better word since he was never quite vulnerable). That's why someone like Nalbandian gave him all he can handle during those years but Roger started dominating him further later on, even when Nalbandian was ranked as highly as number 3 in the world in 2006.

The fact is, it's not just that the slowing down of surfaces helped Roger's game as he evolved towards a more well-rounded style, but it hurt his competition. Can you really deny that Safin, Nalbandian, Hewitt and even Roddick would have preferred faster surfaces? I'm not sure how you "don't buy that for one second" when it's actually a no-brainer.

 

[DarthFed]

^ I don't care what those guys preferred. Yes the truth is it did hurt them too against the newer generation. But guess what...they weren't going to beat Roger on any court aside from once in a blue moon (Safin at AO). But that's irrelevant, I'm mainly talking Roger's bread and butter anyways, grass and hards. I'd imagine he'd have preferred faster and lower bouncing to slower and higher bouncing (grass). Rebound ace definitely suited his game a lot better as well and the USO seems to have slowed as well. Arguing that these changes helped Roger just goes against any kind of common sense.

 

[Federberg]

I don't buy for one second that slowing down the courts has helped Roger in any way.

Actually it has. As Roger moved towards a more point-construction oriented style in 2005-2006, which you yourself acknowledge in your post, it suited the increasing homogeneity to perfection. There's a reason that despite his brilliance on faster surfaces, he wasn't quite as consistent on all surfaces until 2006 (though obviously still very consistent). Yes, it's because he "peaked," but the word "peak" alone is vague. The question is why did he peak? Because his game became more well rounded, and less reliant on all out attack. Just watch a video of Roger playing in 2003 and see how much more aggressive he was compared to 2006.

His ultra offensive days helped him on faster surfaces to be sure, but it also made him a touch more vulnerable (or I guess "less dominant" is a better word since he was never quite vulnerable). That's why someone like Nalbandian gave him all he can handle during those years but Roger started dominating him further later on, even when Nalbandian was ranked as highly as number 3 in the world in 2006.

The fact is, it's not just that the slowing down of surfaces helped Roger's game as he evolved towards a more well-rounded style, but it hurt his competition. Can you really deny that Safin, Nalbandian, Hewitt and even Roddick would have preferred faster surfaces? I'm not sure how you "don't buy that for one second" when it's actually a no-brainer.

I get what you're saying BS, and it's possible that it's true. But I'm not sure anyone of us really knows if it was Roger reaching his potential or surfaces slowing down that achieved the results he did. It's one of those eternal mysteries.. like what exactly did Voeller say to Rijkaard. I for one would love to know!

Interesting stuff though..

PS,, I'm not sure if anything would have helped Roddick against Roger :snigger But you may have a point with the others

 

[brokenshoelace]

^ I don't care what those guys preferred. Yes the truth is it did hurt them too against the newer generation. But guess what...they weren't going to beat Roger on any court aside from once in a blue moon (Safin at AO).

...and that's pretty much what Haelfix was suggesting: that these guys would have caused an occasional upset. Nothing more, nothing less. None of these guys was ever going to consistently trouble Roger.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I don't buy for one second that slowing down the courts has helped Roger in any way.

Actually it has. As Roger moved towards a more point-construction oriented style in 2005-2006, which you yourself acknowledge in your post, it suited the increasing homogeneity to perfection. There's a reason that despite his brilliance on faster surfaces, he wasn't quite as consistent on all surfaces until 2006 (though obviously still very consistent). Yes, it's because he "peaked," but the word "peak" alone is vague. The question is why did he peak? Because his game became more well rounded, and less reliant on all out attack. Just watch a video of Roger playing in 2003 and see how much more aggressive he was compared to 2006.

His ultra offensive days helped him on faster surfaces to be sure, but it also made him a touch more vulnerable (or I guess "less dominant" is a better word since he was never quite vulnerable). That's why someone like Nalbandian gave him all he can handle during those years but Roger started dominating him further later on, even when Nalbandian was ranked as highly as number 3 in the world in 2006.

The fact is, it's not just that the slowing down of surfaces helped Roger's game as he evolved towards a more well-rounded style, but it hurt his competition. Can you really deny that Safin, Nalbandian, Hewitt and even Roddick would have preferred faster surfaces? I'm not sure how you "don't buy that for one second" when it's actually a no-brainer.

I get what you're saying BS, and it's possible that it's true. But I'm not sure anyone of us really knows if it was Roger reaching his potential or surfaces slowing down that achieved the results he did. It's one of those eternal mysteries.. like what exactly did Voeller say to Rijkaard. I for one would love to know!

Interesting stuff though..

PS,, I'm not sure if anything would have helped Roddick against Roger :snigger But you may have a point with the others

It's both. Roger was reaching his potential as far as turning into a complete tennis player goes (he served better in 2006-2007 than he did prior, which is unrelated to surfaces), but the way his game evolved worked even more due to the slowing down of the surfaces. He became more or less an aggressive baseliner with an all court game, despite being originally a serve and volley guy and all out aggressive baseliner.

Roddick was not going to beat Federer on any surface anywhere, but the slowing down of the surfaces hurt his game in general (not necessarily against Federer since nothing would have helped him in that regard), and he was forced to change the way he played. His entire game changed and his forehand in particular lost a lot of what made it good. He took a gamble by changing his game to suit both the surfaces and to be able to better deal with Federer, and it hurt him on the long run.

 

[DarthFed]

^ I don't care what those guys preferred. Yes the truth is it did hurt them too against the newer generation. But guess what...they weren't going to beat Roger on any court aside from once in a blue moon (Safin at AO).

...and that's pretty much what Haelfix was suggesting: that these guys would have caused an occasional upset. Nothing more, nothing less. None of these guys was ever going to consistently trouble Roger.

Ah, I think I see your argument is that slowing the courts made Roger a better all around player, not necessarily helped him results wise (which is my point that it hurt his results especially as he aged).

It's possible but there are a couple other factors that makes that debatable 1. Roger had that much ability that he was going to develop more all around as he reached his peak and 2. Roger probably realized he'd have to change his game a bit to win on clay, specifically RG. By the time Roger finished 2004 he had just had one of the most dominant years the sport had seen and was easily winning everything in sight except clay. So even then he was probably thinking of how to better his chances to get the last slam that was missing.

 

[Federberg]

Actually it has. As Roger moved towards a more point-construction oriented style in 2005-2006, which you yourself acknowledge in your post, it suited the increasing homogeneity to perfection. There's a reason that despite his brilliance on faster surfaces, he wasn't quite as consistent on all surfaces until 2006 (though obviously still very consistent). Yes, it's because he "peaked," but the word "peak" alone is vague. The question is why did he peak? Because his game became more well rounded, and less reliant on all out attack. Just watch a video of Roger playing in 2003 and see how much more aggressive he was compared to 2006.

His ultra offensive days helped him on faster surfaces to be sure, but it also made him a touch more vulnerable (or I guess "less dominant" is a better word since he was never quite vulnerable). That's why someone like Nalbandian gave him all he can handle during those years but Roger started dominating him further later on, even when Nalbandian was ranked as highly as number 3 in the world in 2006.

The fact is, it's not just that the slowing down of surfaces helped Roger's game as he evolved towards a more well-rounded style, but it hurt his competition. Can you really deny that Safin, Nalbandian, Hewitt and even Roddick would have preferred faster surfaces? I'm not sure how you "don't buy that for one second" when it's actually a no-brainer.

I get what you're saying BS, and it's possible that it's true. But I'm not sure anyone of us really knows if it was Roger reaching his potential or surfaces slowing down that achieved the results he did. It's one of those eternal mysteries.. like what exactly did Voeller say to Rijkaard. I for one would love to know!

Interesting stuff though..

PS,, I'm not sure if anything would have helped Roddick against Roger :snigger But you may have a point with the others

It's both. Roger was reaching his potential as far as turning into a complete tennis player goes (he served better in 2006-2007 than he did prior, which is unrelated to surfaces), but the way his game evolved worked even more due to the slowing down of the surfaces. He became more or less an aggressive baseliner with an all court game, despite being originally a serve and volley guy and all out aggressive baseliner.

Roddick was not going to beat Federer on any surface anywhere, but the slowing down of the surfaces hurt his game in general (not necessarily against Federer since nothing would have helped him in that regard), and he was forced to change the way he played. His entire game changed and his forehand in particular lost a lot of what made it good. He took a gamble by changing his game to suit both the surfaces and to be able to better deal with Federer, and it hurt him on the long run.

It's still impossible to say definitively if it's one or the other I'm afraid. There are no certainties here unfortunately

 

[DarthFed]

^ Yeah, and the only thing I'm certain of in regards to the "slowing of the surfaces" is that it hurt Roger's career...yes I said it. He'd likely have won a whole lot more and still have been very relevant even today.

 

[Federberg]

^ Yeah, and the only thing I'm certain of in regards to the "slowing of the surfaces" is that it hurt Roger's career...yes I said it. He'd likely have won a whole lot more and still have been very relevant even today.

Lol! Still relevant today! :laydownlaughing

 

[DarthFed]

^ Well, he is "relevant" today by rank but he hasn't won a slam in 2.5 years and at this point most people think he is only a small threat at 3 of the 4 and still a contender at Wimbledon. (I personally think he is a contender at the last 2).

But my point is if you had the lightning fast grass, rebound ace, and quicker USO we are talking someone seriously in the mix with Nole and Rafa.

 

[Federberg]

^ Well, he is "relevant" today by rank but he hasn't won a slam in 2.5 years and at this point most people think he is only a small threat at 3 of the 4 and still a contender at Wimbledon. (I personally think he is a contender at the last 2).

But my point is if you had the lightning fast grass, rebound ace, and quicker USO we are talking someone seriously in the mix with Nole and Rafa.

I don't care what anyone says, if Cilic and Wawrinka can win slams, Federer can. He's still in the top 3 for a reason. This is sports, anything can happen, as we saw last year. Yes I agree, it's not like it was a few years back, where we were banking on him getting to finals, but it's not like he's suddenly become Tommy Robredo or something..