OT- Federer | Page 3 | The Boneyard

OT- Federer

JSM1970 said:
I didn't say Djoker is a serve & volley guy or who relies on huge ace #s, just that a guy who needs a good 1st serve %.

My point has solely been in their primes Rodg is not as good as Rafa, Pete or Djoker.

I don't know how that is trolling
Expand ...

Wow you put Djokovic above Fed without even knowing Novak's game. Still waiting for you to enlighten everyone how any of those guys were better than Fed in his prime.
 
Hard to argue Tiger, not just the 18 vs. 14 with Jack, but Jack had 19 2nds and a total of 48 top 3s

I think Tiger had a stretch when he was more dominant and if he kept it together might have gotten to 18+

Jack had more longevity, he had 11 majors 30 or older, Tiger only had 4

Serena obviously, most dominate female athlete ever and possibly overall athlete

tzznandrew said:
Fed and Serena, yes.

Tiger, debateable, but probably a no (#2)

LeBron, still below MJ. Maybe Kareem too (who no one puts in these conversations, but probably deserves to be).
Expand ...
 
JSM1970 said:
Hard to argue Tiger, not just the 18 vs. 14 with Jack, but Jack had 19 2nds and a total of 48 top 3s

I think Tiger had a stretch when he was more dominant and if he kept it together might have gotten to 18+

Jack had more longevity, he had 11 majors 30 or older, Tiger only had 4

Serena obviously, most dominate female athlete ever and possibly overall athlete
Expand ...

Nope, Serena only won during a weak era. Kim Clijsters, Amelie Mauresmo, Justine Henin, and Victoria Azarenka were all better in their prime. Serena is at best the #5 women's player in the last 10 years, I just don't like her game and think she sucks. She's also full of herself and doesn't seem very likeable. Overrated and not the best.
 
NielsisGood said:
Nope, Serena only won during a weak era. Kim Clijsters, Amelie Mauresmo, Justine Henin, and Victoria Azarenka were all better in their prime. Serena is at best the #5 women's player in the last 10 years, I just don't like her game and think she sucks. She's also full of herself and doesn't seem very likeable. Overrated and not the best.
Expand ...
I think this is a spot on parody, but I do think a case can be made for Steffi Graf, who was better on clay than Serena. And you might be able to throw in Navratilova, who consistently went further into tournaments than Serena. Both of them had tougher players in their respective eras (they overlapped, MN had Evert in her early run, SG had Seles in the 90s).

I'd probably still say Serena, at her peak, was more dominant, but I think its a discussion more than the Federer one is.
 
.-.
Wait, we're saying Rodg is the best because he has the most GS wins, but that doesn't apply to Serena.

Got it.

NielsisGood said:
Nope, Serena only won during a weak era. Kim Clijsters, Amelie Mauresmo, Justine Henin, and Victoria Azarenka were all better in their prime. Serena is at best the #5 women's player in the last 10 years, I just don't like her game and think she sucks. She's also full of herself and doesn't seem very likeable. Overrated and not the best.
Expand ...
 
NielsisGood said:
Fed is great at every aspect of tennis, click the link and take a gander at all the records he owns singularly. Djokovic isn't even known for his serve, comments like this are why I don't think you're trolling, I think you're actually this stupid.
Expand ...
It's scary, he's actually not trolling. He's always miserable over on the cesspool but this takes the cake. He's the least knowledgeable sports fan in the history of this forum.
 
JSM1970 said:
Hard to argue Tiger, not just the 18 vs. 14 with Jack, but Jack had 19 2nds and a total of 48 top 3s

I think Tiger had a stretch when he was more dominant and if he kept it together might have gotten to 18+

Jack had more longevity, he had 11 majors 30 or older, Tiger only had 4

Serena obviously, most dominate female athlete ever and possibly overall athlete
Expand ...

Jack? That guy was the ultimate compiler. Anyone can win a dozen majors if they play long enough. Tiger got out when he was on top to follow his dreams of strippers and prescription pills while compiler Jack was still playing when he was a grandpa.
 
I agree. Tiger more dominant for a stretch.

Just looked, Jack had 163 starts and 56 top 5s. 34%.

Tiger had 76 and 38 top 5s. 50%

But somewhat skewed because Jack played some many times over the age of 50 when he wasn't competitive any longer.


Robertelamin said:
Jack? That guy was the ultimate compiler. Anyone can win a dozen majors if they play long enough. Tiger got out when he was on top to follow his dreams of strippers and prescription pills while compiler Jack was still playing when he was a grandpa.
Expand ...
 
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.
 
.-.
JSM1970 said:
He has the most GSs, but not the best player

Very consistent and well rounded, not great at any one thing whereas Pete & Djoker relied on high 1st serve %s
Expand ...
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.
 
JSM1970 said:
He's none of these, except the #s due to playing against inferior competition for a long stretch.

To reiterate, he compiled yuge #s in a 6-7 year period against weak competition and was average in a period when other top players emerged.

Almost all of the great players played in eras against other great players.

If he didn't have this 2017 resurgence we'd honestly be labeling him as a borderline joke because he was dominated for 5-7 years. 2017 has actually made and saved his legacy.
Expand ...
"So let's just take out 2002. and 2003, and 2004. And 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010.
Oh and 2017. Yeah let's just disregard half of Federer's career. Now I can say Federer is a joke."

And for Michael Jordan? What a joke that guy is. If you take out 1991, 92, 93, 96, 97, 98, what did that guy accomplish?
 
Martina brought the game to a new level
Loved her. But I don't think she could compete with Serena.
The game evolved.
Don't think McEnroe or Chris Everett could play today's game as champions
 
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

RayIsTheGOAT said:
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.
Expand ...
 
JSM1970 said:
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
Expand ...

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


nadav said:
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.
Expand ...
 
JSM1970 said:
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
Expand ...

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.
 
JSM1970 said:
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
Expand ...
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.
 
tzznandrew said:
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.
Expand ...

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:
NielsisGood said:
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.
Expand ...
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
 
.-.
tzznandrew said:
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
Expand ...


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.
 
nadav said:
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.
Expand ...
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:
JSM1970 said:
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
Expand ...

Pet peeve: when people incorrectly use the word dominate instead of dominant.
 
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.
 
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
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,263
Messages
4,560,470
Members
10,452
Latest member
WashingtonH


Top Bottom