OT- Federer | Page 4 | The Boneyard

OT- Federer

Joined
Mar 20, 2015
Messages
4,381
Reaction Score
1,362
Great all around player, consistent, awesome movement and conditioning, rarely injured, smart player, let others beat themselves

Losing record against Djoker and Rafa, 14-11 against Murray and that is winning last 4 when Murray has had injury issues

My favorite player ever = Andre, Johnny Mac close 2nd
Most dominate at his best = Pete, the serve, forehand
Best overall = Djoker Nole when healthy, in prime
Most consistent = Fed
Most entertaining = Jimmy C

Did this dude really just say Roger Federer is not great at any one thing??

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

You somehow, time and time again, find a way to say something that is the exact opposite from the truth. He's literally great in every aspect of his game. You are either a master troll or a flaming idiot. I'll go with the latter.
 

David 76

Forty years a fan
Joined
Nov 8, 2013
Messages
6,165
Reaction Score
15,203
Great all around player, consistent, awesome movement and conditioning, rarely injured, smart player, let others beat themselves

Losing record against Djoker and Rafa, 14-11 against Murray and that is winning last 4 when Murray has

Thanks. Just a few more times and I think I'll have it.
 

nadav

I hit skins for the hell of it
Joined
Sep 2, 2011
Messages
752
Reaction Score
3,048
On any surface Fed beats Sampras. Grass would be fun to watch. Pete compliled most titles while his chief rivals were Rafter and Agassi and Andre was doing meth for a few years. So the competition argument is completely inaccurate.
 
Joined
Mar 20, 2015
Messages
4,381
Reaction Score
1,362
Huh? Pete on Hard Tru against Rodg would be silly

You think Rodg could handle his serve? Pete would dominate him

Rodg compiled 15 of his GSs against either Pete/Andre at the very end, Rafa very early or otherwise nobody's

I hope Djoker is healthy @ US Open and just smokes him in semis or Finals


On any surface Fed beats Sampras. Grass would be fun to watch. Pete compliled most titles while his chief rivals were Rafter and Agassi and Andre was doing meth for a few years. So the competition argument is completely inaccurate.
 

nadav

I hit skins for the hell of it
Joined
Sep 2, 2011
Messages
752
Reaction Score
3,048
Huh? Pete on Hard Tru against Rodg would be silly

You think Rodg could handle his serve? Pete would dominate him

Rodg compiled 15 of his GSs against either Pete/Andre at the very end, Rafa very early or otherwise nobody's

I hope Djoker is healthy @ US Open and just smokes him in semis or Finals

This is silly. From 04-10 Fed won 8 of 14 slams played on hard courts AND he wasn't mediocre on clay, like Pete. Your last sentence just shows you have a blind hate for Fed. Good for Pete for beating a fat Agassi in the US Open though and world beater Pat Rafter.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
13,277
Reaction Score
35,109
Huh? Pete on Hard Tru against Rodg would be silly

You think Rodg could handle his serve? Pete would dominate him

Rodg compiled 15 of his GSs against either Pete/Andre at the very end, Rafa very early or otherwise nobody's

I hope Djoker is healthy @ US Open and just smokes him in semis or Finals
I think Federer could handle Sampras's serve because he handles people whose serve is just has fast--or faster (Roddick).

He also did handle Sampras' serve just fine at Wimbledon, which has the fastest surface.

Again, Pete was great on grass, and also damn freaking good on hard surfaces. But if you could neutralize his serve you could beat him (cf. French Open). Federer could and would.
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
1,027
Reaction Score
1,240
I think Federer could handle Sampras's serve because he handles people whose serve is just has fast--or faster (Roddick).

He also did handle Sampras' serve just fine at Wimbledon, which has the fastest surface.

Again, Pete was great on grass, and also damn freaking good on hard surfaces. But if you could neutralize his serve you could beat him (cf. French Open). Federer could and would.

Most of what you said is accurate but hard courts are faster than grass.


Edit: nvm looks like some conflicting opinions based on a couple things I've read.

Lets go ahead and say clay is the fastest and Fed is like the 7th best player of all time, just to be safe.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
13,277
Reaction Score
35,109
Most of what you said is accurate but hard courts are faster than grass. The speed difference is why Nadal was competitive on grass long before he was on hard courts.
Not to turn this into a thing, but the speed of grass vs. hard surfaces is a little complicated, and depends on a number of factors.

The most important factor is the “coefficient of friction,” a measurement of the abrasive force between the ground and the tennis ball. Courts with high frictional coefficients interfere with the movement of the ball, disrupting its forward momentum. Think of a sluggish clay court. According to experiments performed by the ITF, a shot hit without spin and traveling at 67 mph will lose about 43 percent of its ground speed after contact with the clay surface, slowing down to a leisurely 38 mph. (The reason clay steals momentum is rooted in the friction of all that loose brick, which clumps around the ball. Each clump is like a little speed bump.) As a result, players have a few extra milliseconds to hit a return.

In contrast, a shot on a fresh grass court — think of Wimbledon on opening day — will maintain a speed around 45 mph, which is 15 to 20 percent faster than clay. Hard courts are usually a smidgen slower than grass, although the speed of the court depends on the amount of sand mixed in with the acrylic paint. (There are at least 45 different kinds of hard court, some of which play slower than clay. The Australian Open, for instance, is played on a Plexicushion surface, which has a slightly higher frictional coefficient than the U.S. Open.) While grass courts become more sluggish over the course of a tournament — the exposed dirt plays more like brick — hard courts actually accelerate, as the soles of shoes wear down the surface friction, especially around the baseline.

...

These angles exaggerate the perceived speed of a court. The friction of clay leads to high bounces, which give players even more time to chase down a shot. In contrast, frictionless grass courts have a low “angle of rebound” — the balls maintain a flat trajectory — which leads players to perceive the court as even faster than it is. In fact, these rebound angles are typically more important in shaping the perceived speed of a court than the actual velocity of the ball. (Hard courts and grass courts often generate the same postbounce velocity, but grass courts seem faster because the ball bounces at a lower angle.) As Howard Brody, a physicist at the University of Pennsylvania, notes in his classic Tennis Science for Tennis Players: “The eye and brain are much better at gauging an angle than observing a slight change in ball speed. If the ball comes off the court at a low angle after the bounce, you conclude that the court is fast because you must act faster.”
The Physics of Grass, Clay, and Cement
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
1,027
Reaction Score
1,240
Not to turn this into a thing, but the speed of grass vs. hard surfaces is a little complicated, and depends on a number of factors.

The most important factor is the “coefficient of friction,” a measurement of the abrasive force between the ground and the tennis ball. Courts with high frictional coefficients interfere with the movement of the ball, disrupting its forward momentum. Think of a sluggish clay court. According to experiments performed by the ITF, a shot hit without spin and traveling at 67 mph will lose about 43 percent of its ground speed after contact with the clay surface, slowing down to a leisurely 38 mph. (The reason clay steals momentum is rooted in the friction of all that loose brick, which clumps around the ball. Each clump is like a little speed bump.) As a result, players have a few extra milliseconds to hit a return.

In contrast, a shot on a fresh grass court — think of Wimbledon on opening day — will maintain a speed around 45 mph, which is 15 to 20 percent faster than clay. Hard courts are usually a smidgen slower than grass, although the speed of the court depends on the amount of sand mixed in with the acrylic paint. (There are at least 45 different kinds of hard court, some of which play slower than clay. The Australian Open, for instance, is played on a Plexicushion surface, which has a slightly higher frictional coefficient than the U.S. Open.) While grass courts become more sluggish over the course of a tournament — the exposed dirt plays more like brick — hard courts actually accelerate, as the soles of shoes wear down the surface friction, especially around the baseline.

...

These angles exaggerate the perceived speed of a court. The friction of clay leads to high bounces, which give players even more time to chase down a shot. In contrast, frictionless grass courts have a low “angle of rebound” — the balls maintain a flat trajectory — which leads players to perceive the court as even faster than it is. In fact, these rebound angles are typically more important in shaping the perceived speed of a court than the actual velocity of the ball. (Hard courts and grass courts often generate the same postbounce velocity, but grass courts seem faster because the ball bounces at a lower angle.) As Howard Brody, a physicist at the University of Pennsylvania, notes in his classic Tennis Science for Tennis Players: “The eye and brain are much better at gauging an angle than observing a slight change in ball speed. If the ball comes off the court at a low angle after the bounce, you conclude that the court is fast because you must act faster.”
The Physics of Grass, Clay, and Cement


Tennis Court Surfaces and Court Speeds - peRFect Tennis


Not going to copy paste the article because I'm sure you can read, but according to that site both the US and Aussie have faster court speed ratings.
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2011
Messages
4,915
Reaction Score
5,364
Sampras actually played against 'weaker' competition. No disrespect to Pat Rafter and Goran.

Just the idea of thinking Edberg could hang with Federer is pure insanity.
Eberg had a weak, error prone backhand. Federer has the best backhand in the history of the game, no ifs, ands, or buts, and I would rate his forehand as 2nd best ever behind Llendl. That's why he has 19 majors, and his career breaks of service is an incredible number. His all round game is incredible, can serve and volley with the best of them, or hang back and blast ground strokes. He would eat up Edberg.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
6,342
Reaction Score
31,247
Great all around player, consistent, awesome movement and conditioning, rarely injured, smart player, let others beat themselves

Losing record against Djoker and Rafa, 14-11 against Murray and that is winning last 4 when Murray has had injury issues

My favorite player ever = Andre, Johnny Mac close 2nd
Most dominate at his best = Pete, the serve, forehand
Best overall = Djoker Nole when healthy, in prime
Most consistent = Fed
Most entertaining = Jimmy C

Pet peeve: when people incorrectly use the word dominate instead of dominant.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
9,332
Reaction Score
34,010
Equipment plays a massive role in the skill set of the players. It is much easier to have a consistent backhand now than it was in Edberg's day. The racket is doing so much of the work. I played college tennis and had a big serve. I then proceeded to barely touch a tennis racket for 15 years. Within 20 minutes of getting back on the court my serve was more powerful than ever and very controlled. I was able to convert from a lifelong two handed backhand to a solid one hander over the course of a week. It was immediately obvious to me that the rackets were incomparable and that I would be a better player today, literally by leaps and bounds, just because of the rackets. You can block the ball back with these rackets and hit winners.

It isn't fair to compare players from different eras so critically. The bottom line is that the best few players of each generation would be top players if born 20 years later and given proper training and equipment. Talent is innate and with practice, fitness and equipment being equal, these greats would be great in any generation.
 
Joined
Nov 18, 2012
Messages
3,470
Reaction Score
8,610
I always thought hard courts were faster than grass also.

The us open unlike other hard courts doesn't get any sand added to the final coat. It's the fastest hard court surface. You add sand to final coat to make court slower. The more you add the more grit and slower playing surface
 

Online statistics

Members online
363
Guests online
2,217
Total visitors
2,580

Forum statistics

Threads
158,956
Messages
4,175,142
Members
10,045
Latest member
HungreHu5ky


.
Top Bottom