Edberg vs Federer -- hypothetical match-up, aesthetics, mentality and competition [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Edberg vs Federer -- hypothetical match-up, aesthetics, mentality and competition

prima donna
04-24-2009, 01:35 AM
I've been debating with myself over whether or not to open a thread of this nature for a variety of reasons, one of which being the shortage of active members who would seem apt to participate in such a discussion. Thus, I won't be at all surprised if this thread fails to generate discussion; on the contrary, I'd be pleasantly surprised if it were to generate a noticeable level of intrigue, given the current state of affairs on this forum.

It's difficult, and perhaps to some degree, hazardous to one's health to deal in hypothetical scenarios -- especially in sports. After all, the world is seemingly in a constant state of change. How are we to objectively compare two immensely talented athletes who operated under such different conditions ? Well, the truth is, it's an almost impossible endeavor; however, there are certain factors which are able to withstand technological advancements and high-bouncing courts which, in relation to low-bouncing and quick-paced courts, are disproportionately represented.

For example, player H2Hs produce their own irrefutable form of evidence. Moreover, individual weaknesses and strengths can be measured against one another, irrespective of the particular era in question. Lastly, intangibles (e.g., psychological endurance, mentality and self-belief) constitute a stable foundation upon which to build an objective review of two players.

Significant H2Hs:
Federer vs Henman (7-6)
Federer vs Rafter (0-3)
Federer vs Sampras (1-0) - Wimbledon

Edberg vs Henman (2-0) - 1996
Edberg vs Rafter (3-0) - 1995
Edberg vs Sampras (6-8) - (2-0 in slams - US Open Final '92, Aussie Open '93)

In the case of Edberg's five victories over Rafter and Henman, his age is noteworthy: He was well beyond his prime, and would retire in 1996. Based on this fact, we are able to conclude that the very same players against whom Roger Federer once struggled were no match for even an old, declining Edberg.

Federer's poor record against Rafter is significant insofar as it serves as an illustration of the trials and tribulations of a developing star. However, Federer did lose to Rafter on three surfaces (clay, grass, hard). With respect to Tim Henman, Federer won their final six meetings after going 1-6 in their first seven matches.

Edberg triumphed over a young, virile Pete Sampras in their only two meetings at Grand Slams; Federer beat Sampras in a 5-set Wimbledon thriller, barely defeating a declining 13-time Grand Slam champion (Yes, Sampras had 13 slams in 2001).

Based on Federer's ratio of success against inferior serve-and-volleyers, it's difficult to conclude that he would "dominate" Edberg, even under today's painfully slow conditions. Could he beat him ? Perhaps so, but one shudders to imagine how Federer would have fared against an Edberg in his prime, given his mediocre record against less accomplished serve-and-volleyers. Moreover, one could easily make the case for Edberg as the best serve-and-volleyer, even when compared to the likes of McEnroe and Sampras (the latter being the weaker of the two at net, a fact which was diluted by the Sampras 1st serve).

Game analysis:
Forehand: Federer by far
Backhand: Edberg by far
Serve: Tie (Kick-serve - Edberg) (Slice - Tie) (Flat - Fed)
Passing: Federer (better forehand pass)
Movement: Tie
Defense: Federer
Mental fortitude: Edberg (came back from a break down in the 5th set at Wimbledon against Mecir and Becker, also repeated this feat against three successive opponents (Krajicek, Lendl, Chang) at '92 USO)

Also, with respect to Edberg's kick serve (which would be enhanced on today's high-bouncing surfaces), Federer would struggle to consistently attack it with his backhand, which would be a requisite in order to combat an endless barrage of net attacks by Edberg.

ORGASMATRON
04-24-2009, 01:54 AM
Get outta here.

habibko
04-24-2009, 01:56 AM
PD opening a thread in GM, now that's a bold move.

I will have to disagree with the mental fortitude part, Federer at his peak had a legendary mentality, how easy is it to come back down two sets against a player like Nadal and win the 5th set so convincingly like he did? this is just one example.

maybe you have the recent Fed in mind..

it's a great matchup and tennis would have been the winner, but I give peak Federer (2004/2007) the edge in most matches, that Federer played S&Vs with closed eyes.

it would be interesting if someone posted Federer's statistics against S&V players in general.

prima donna
04-24-2009, 02:05 AM
PD opening a thread in GM, now that's a bold move.

I will have to disagree with the mental fortitude part, Federer at his peak had a legendary mentality, how easy is it to come back down two sets against a player like Nadal and win the 5th set so convincingly like he did? this is just one example. .
How difficult is it to put oneself in such a precarious position against an 18-year-old ? Moreover, Edberg's comebacks came on the grand stage -- Wimbledon, not to mention his three consecutive USO comebacks.

habibko
04-24-2009, 02:17 AM
How difficult is it to put oneself in such a precarious position against an 18-year-old ? Moreover, Edberg's comebacks came on the grand stage -- Wimbledon, not to mention his three consecutive USO comebacks.

well, the Wimbledon final 2008 is another example, although it didn't end with a victory it required alot of mental determination and power to win the third and especially the fourth set tie break and push the 5th set to the limits.

in any case, as mental fortitude is seldom the criterion to decide matches, I look at their matchup from a technical point of view and still see that Federer has the upper edge on all slow surfaces, and it could go either way on fast HC and grass and still Fed would win most of those encounters.

of course that's all speculation.

prima donna
04-24-2009, 02:22 AM
well, the Wimbledon final 2008 is another example
Great example -- Roger lost.


in any case, as mental fortitude is seldom the criterion to decide matches,
Oh ? Then how does one explain Nadal's domination over Fed ? He certainly isn't the better player in the technique department, much less any other area of the game.

habibko
04-24-2009, 02:26 AM
look I'm trying to give my opinion, if you are going to ridicule anyone who disagrees with you then what's the point of the thread?

Fiberlight1
04-24-2009, 02:27 AM
Great example -- Roger lost.


Oh ? Then how does one explain Nadal's domination over Fed ? He certainly isn't the better player in the technique department, much less any other area of the game.

Four words...

Cause his backhand sucks.

prima donna
04-24-2009, 02:28 AM
look I'm trying to give my opinion, if you are going to ridicule anyone who disagrees with you then what's the point of the thread?
Ridicule ? I'm stating simple facts. Nadal has a psychological edge over Federer, which debunks your assertion that mental fortitude doesn't decide matches.

habibko
04-24-2009, 02:36 AM
Ridicule ? I'm stating simple facts. Nadal has a psychological edge over Federer, which debunks your assertion that mental fortitude doesn't decide matches.

I didn't say it doesn't decide matches.

about the mathcup, it's a great matchup for tennis, as any S&V player against Federer always provides a good match, so with Edberg it would be a wonderful matchup, they could even play someday in an exhibition, Edberg hasn't lost his touch at the net from what I've seen recently.

7ZR5X1B9jPA

as for the hypothetical matchup in their peaks, Federer would win most the matches.

prima donna
04-24-2009, 02:39 AM
as for the hypothetical matchup, Federer would win most the matches.
Fair enough. Mind sharing with me how you've arrived at this conclusion ? Based on what ?

habibko
04-24-2009, 02:45 AM
Fair enough. Mind sharing with me how you've arrived at this conclusion ? Based on what ?

well, Federer has a more complete game, more power in his groundstrokes, great passing shots, better return of serve, I don't see how Edberg could hurt him really.

but then again it's the fallacy of judging the modern game with the classic game, I have no idea how Edberg's game would have been if he played in this power generation, from what I know Federer will handle Edberg's charges at the net well and have more chances when recieving, and he will control the rallies easily on his own service games with his superior groundstrokes.

Angle Queen
04-24-2009, 02:49 AM
I'll jump in, PD.

I watched and admired, at the time, plenty of Edberg matches (keeping in mind that they were Saturday or Sunday afternoon dalliances of the major networks here in the US)...but I've also had the chance to watch some vintage matches...as well as some of his more, ah, senior and current efforts. It's indeed a beautiful game, then and now. But I can't help but believe that Edberg, at his prime, with the equipment of his time....versus Federer at his prime, with current racket/training technology...would be the loser. And I'll note that I'm far from a FedFan.

I have nothing on which to base it, no statistics that could/would point in that direction. It's more of a gut feeling...that the current (GOAT-nominee) player would prevail over the past (and I've yet to see someone even put Edberg, as good as he was, in the GOAT category).

But I'll say this: I would pay GOOD money...to see such a match. LIVE. Prime vs. Prime. We can only watch those in our dreams, I suppose.

Good on you for starting such a discussion, though. It's rare to see Stefan included in a "dream" (all puns intended) matchup.

prima donna
04-24-2009, 02:53 AM
well, Federer has a more complete game, more power in his groundstrokes, great passing shots, better return of serve, I don't see how Edberg could hurt him really.
The same way that Henman was able to hurt him -- to an even greater extent. Roger's record against serve-and-volleyers is hardly impressive. Moreover, a serve-and-volley strategy requires that the opposition consistently generate extraordinary shots. It's not a type of game which is geared towards "hurting" the opposition. It's about persistence, composure and mental strength.

It's one thing to consistently hit winners against a player camped out on the baseline, having to hit those same shots often from compromised and hurried positions is a more difficult task, especially against a player approaching net at least 130 times.

Roger struggled against inferior serve-and-volleyers early in his career. Why would he suddenly manhandle one of the greatest, if not the greatest serve-and-volleyers of all time ? The shoe doesn't fit.

habibko
04-24-2009, 02:55 AM
The same way that Henman was able to hurt him -- to an even greater extent. Roger's record against serve-and-volleyers is hardly impressive. Moreover, a serve-and-volley strategy requires that the opposition consistently generate extraordinary shots. It's not a type of game which is geared towards "hurting" the opposition. It's about persistence, composure and mental strength.

It's one thing to consistently hit winners against a player camped out on the baseline, having to hit those same shots often from compromised and hurried positions is a more difficult task, especially against a player approaching net at least 130 times.

Roger struggled against inferior serve-and-volleyers early in his career. Why would he manhandle one of the greatest, if not the greatest serve-and-volleyers of all time ? The shoe doesn't fit.

I'm obviously talking about peak Federer.

prima donna
04-24-2009, 02:55 AM
I'll jump in, PD.

I watched and admired, at the time, plenty of Edberg matches (keeping in mind that they were Saturday or Sunday afternoon dalliances of the major networks here in the US)...but I've also had the chance to watch some vintage matches...as well as some of his more, ah, senior and current efforts. It's indeed a beautiful game, then and now. But I can't help but believe that Edberg, at his prime, with the equipment of his time....versus Federer at his prime, with current racket/training technology...would be the loser. And I'll note that I'm far from a FedFan.

I have nothing on which to base it, no statistics that could/would point in that direction. It's more of a gut feeling...that the current (GOAT-nominee) player would prevail over the past (and I've yet to see someone even put Edberg, as good as he was, in the GOAT category).

But I'll say this: I would pay GOOD money...to see such a match. LIVE. Prime vs. Prime. We can only watch those in our dreams, I suppose.

Good on you for starting such a discussion, though. It's rare to see Stefan included in a "dream" (all puns intended) matchup.
I appreciate your input. Thanks :)

Clay Death
04-24-2009, 02:55 AM
I didn't say it doesn't decide matches.

about the mathcup, it's a great matchup for tennis, as any S&V player against Federer always provides a good match, so with Edberg it would be a wonderful matchup, they could even play someday in an exhibition, Edberg hasn't lost his touch at the net from what I've seen recently.

7ZR5X1B9jPA

as for the hypothetical matchup in their peaks, Federer would win most the matches.

this is not even close. Edberg was good in his day obviously but he would be useless against Fed.

the game has progressed and Fed played it--at the height of his powers--as well as it could be played. it was certainly sufficient to win him no less than 13 slams. this dude use to lose no more than 6-7 matches a year. it was simply a far superior game than what Edberg could do on the court.

Fed was superior to Edberg in every aspect of the game:

1. he was a better mover
2. had a bigger forehand
3. bigger backhand and more variety off that wing
4. better return
5. better at the forecourt

what else is there? no need to bring the Clay Monster or Rafter or anybody else into this. keep the analysis simple.

if the question is Edberg vs Fed, the answer is Fed. its no contest. he is as superior to Edberg as the living are to the dead.

and as for the aesthetics, they dont pay the mortgage at the end of the day. Borg`s strokes were unorthodox and but his coach warned against the idea of ever changing them. why? because he was owning the planet with those strokes. they were effective and he hardly ever missed when he was on.

sounds familiar? it should. just watch who is owning the planet now.

its about winning matches, not the bloody aesthetics.

prima donna
04-24-2009, 03:00 AM
I'm obviously talking about peak Federer.
It's easy to say that Federer on his best day would dismantle Edberg, no doubt about it. However, that version of Federer only showed up 35% of the time -- even during his three-year reign at the apex of tennis. I actually believe that Edberg would stand more than a fighter's chance against a "mediocre" Fed.

habibko
04-24-2009, 03:00 AM
this is not even close. Edberg was good in his day obviously but he would be useless against Fed.

the game has progressed and Fed played it--at the height of his powers--as well as it could be played. it was certainly sufficient to win him no less than 13 slams. this dude use to lose no more than 6-7 matches a year. it was simply a far superior game than what Edberg could do on the court.

Fed was superior to Edberg in every aspect of the game:

1. he was a better mover
2. had a bigger forehand
3. bigger backhand and more variety off that wing
4. better return
5. better at the forecourt

what else is there? no need to bring the Clay Monster or Rafter or anybody else into this. keep the analysis simple.

if the question is Edberg vs Fed, the answer is Fed. its no contest. he is as superior to Edberg as the living are to the dead.

This :) however I disagree about the forecourt part, I don't think anyone can match Edberg in that department.

aesthetics however are important for some and less important for some, that is debatable.

prima donna
04-24-2009, 03:02 AM
3. bigger backhand and more variety off that wing

Is this a joke ?

JimmyV
04-24-2009, 03:02 AM
Thread Progression

-Make sure post sounds and reads like a college essay - Check
-Insult majority of the forum in introduction - Check
-Form paper thin argument with skeptical at best facts - Check
-Surprisingly, "Generate Intrigue" and get some decent response - Check
-Refuse to listen to/discuss posters responses - Check
-Insult said posters/talk to them like their 5 years old - Check
-Throw temper tantrum/thread degenerates into spamming about Nadal/Djokovic/Buffalo chicken strips - In progress

prima donna
04-24-2009, 03:03 AM
Wait, I'm having flashbacks of the best one-hander thread. Are you two actually implying that Roger's backhand is superior to that of Edberg ? If so, what a surreal experience, not to mention a highly comical one.

Clay Death
04-24-2009, 03:07 AM
This :) however I disagree about the forecourt part, I don't think anyone can match Edberg in that department.

aesthetics however are important for some and less important for some, that is debatable.

negative General. i have studied the game in great detail. Mac is about the best i have ever seen at the net and the forecourt. his 77 doubles title to go along with his 77 singles titles can attest to that. he was a menace at the net.

Fed is the 2nd best. Edberg simply volleyed an inferior ball at the net. while he was athletic and displayed relatively sound mechanics, Fed was far more destructive at the net at the height of his powers and he often had to volley a superior ball, the one that traveled a good 10-15 mph faster than the one Edberg had to deal with.

in addition, Fed dealt with balls that have/had significantly more spin.

habibko
04-24-2009, 03:09 AM
Wait, I'm having flashbacks of the best one-hander thread. Are you two actually implying that Roger's backhand is superior to that of Edberg ? If so, what a surreal experience, not to mention a highly comical one.

what makes you think Edberg has a better backhand?

habibko
04-24-2009, 03:12 AM
negative General. i have studied the game in great detail. Mac is about the best i have ever seen at the net and the forecourt. his 77 doubles title to go along with his 77 singles titles can attest to that. he was a menace at the net.

Fed is the 2nd best. Edberg simply volleyed an inferior ball at the net. while he was athletic and displayed relatively sound mechanics, Fed was far more destructive at the net at the height of his powers and he often had to volley a superior ball, the one that traveled a good 10-15 mph faster than the one Edberg had to deal with.

in addition, Fed dealt with balls that have/had significantly more spin.

yes but that's because of the nature of the modern power game, even Roger himself admits he wishes he volleyed as well as Edberg.

of course we have no way to really know how Edberg would have adapted with the power game, but he does volley effectively and beautifully on the senior tour :shrug:

Clay Death
04-24-2009, 03:12 AM
Is this a joke ?

you know i am being serious. Fed`s record should spell that out to some extent.

also, consider all the variables. aesthetics mean nothing so forget about them.

Fed was dealing with a different ball. significanty faster ball and it came at him with more spin.

i would have to rate Fed`s single hander significantly superior to Edberg`s single hander. its no contest as far as i am concerned.

prima donna
04-24-2009, 03:21 AM
what makes you think Edberg has a better backhand?
With all due respect, have you seen Edberg in his prime ? He won 6 slams (2 AOs, 2 Wimbledons, 2 Us opens) with his backhand volley and backhand drive. His forehand was, at times, pitiful, which necessitated that his backhand compensate for such a blatant weakness.

habibko
04-24-2009, 03:25 AM
With all due respect, have you seen Edberg in his prime ? He won 6 slams (2 AOs, 2 Wimbledons, 2 Us opens) with his backhand volley and backhand drive. His forehand was, at times, pitiful, which necessitated that his backhand compensate for such a blatant weakness.

well, with all due respect, do you remember how Federer's backhand was in his dominance years? it was the lesser of two evils to say the least, I don't think a solid backhand can win Edberg matches against Federer really.

I have watched many matches and highlights of Edberg and I don't think his backhand is any better than Federer's, maybe the backhand volley sure, but besides that it's all Roger's way.

Clay Death
04-24-2009, 03:28 AM
With all due respect, have you seen Edberg in his prime ? He won 6 slams (2 AOs, 2 Wimbledons, 2 Us opens) with his backhand volley and backhand drive. His forehand was, at times, pitiful, which necessitated that his backhand compensate for such a blatant weakness.


we still continue to omit some key variables old sport:

that single hander would not hold up in the modern game. that is just one variable for starters.

think of Edberg as a specialized hunter in a special field. his skills would not only be obsolete today to some extent but the field itself has changed.

even lesser players--who do not have Fed`s record of dominance--would brutalize Edberg`s weaker wing all day long. he would be a sitting duck against the likes of Djokovic and Murray.

so yes his backhand was adequate in his day against the players he had to face but it would be a massive liability today. in tennis, one weakness is all you need to have and a great player can exploit it to death time and again.

finally, Edberg would be forced to stay at the baseline today which would mean that he would have to produce from the backcourt. its not that easy for a guy with a single hander to win anything of any significance today.

prima donna
04-24-2009, 03:40 AM
Roger passes really well off the backhand, but his backhand has never been above average. It's always been an unstable shot -- it was in 2005 (see Nadal Roland Garros semi, and is even more so in 2009). For example, Wawrinka has a better backhand than Roger in terms of consistency. Is Fed able to make the occasional brilliant backhand pass ? Yes. CC BH ? Yes. BH DTL ? Non-existent. Consistency ? Non-existent.

It's not a shot worthy of being mentioned as one of the best of all time.

Serenidad
04-24-2009, 04:00 AM
Federer would win more often just on the simple fact with these courts, technology, and Federer's passing abilities even on BH Edberg would find it hard to consistency find success coming in. Not a chance in hell he can win making it a baseline battle, not a chance in hell he's going to get in on CONSISTENT quality approaches be it from the service or a textbook approach. Edberg would find the going tough to get in on good enough balls enough to win @ SV game. Sorry.

heartbroken
04-24-2009, 04:12 AM
For example, player H2Hs produce their own irrefutable form of evidence. Moreover, individual weaknesses and strengths can be measured against one another, irrespective of the particular era in question. Lastly, intangibles (e.g., psychological endurance, mentality and self-belief) constitute a stable foundation upon which to build an objective review of two players.

Significant H2Hs:
Federer vs Henman (7-6)
Federer vs Rafter (0-3)
Federer vs Sampras (1-0) - Wimbledon

Edberg vs Henman (2-0) - 1996
Edberg vs Rafter (3-0) - 1995
Edberg vs Sampras (6-8) - (2-0 in slams - US Open Final '92, Aussie Open '93)



If you're going to do a hypothetical matchup, am I correct in assuming that you would be pitting a peak Fed against a peak Edberg? If so, I don't believe some of these h2h results are of any use at all. For a hypo, you have to at least let Fed reach his peak, then I think his results are fair game. Same is true for Edberg. Did Edberg have some failures early in his career? Would it be fair to hold those against him in a hypo comparison?

There is no more meaningless h2h in the list above than the Sampras-Fed matchup from 2001, and I would say the same thing if Sampras had triple-bageled Federer. It's one match, with Sampras after his peak and Federer before his. Even if the hypo matchup was Fed vs Sampras, I'm not going to choose the 2001 version of either player to play the match, so what's the point? It was an interesting match from the standpoint of two legends meeting for the only time, but that's about it.

I really liked Edberg's game, and liked him as a person also. But if a peak Fed played a peak Edberg, I think Fed cleans his clock. Just my two cents, if it's even worth that much. :wavey:

prima donna
04-24-2009, 04:36 AM
There is no more meaningless h2h in the list above than the Sampras-Fed matchup from 2001, and I would say the same thing if Sampras had triple-bageled Federer.

So Federer's record against serve-and-volleyers is of no significance when trying to gauge how he would perform against one of the best serve-and-volleyers of all time ? The point is: Sampras was beyond his prime in 2001, Henman and Rafter were pulverized by an over-the-hill Edberg, which raises a simple question: How does one conclude that Edberg would have his "clock cleaned" by a player who has struggled against players who couldn't even beat an out-of-form Edberg ?

We're talking about the same guy who lost in straight sets on clay to Radek Stepanek last year, another serve-and-volleyer. I'm not disputing the fact that Federer playing his best would dismantle Edberg. I'm inquiring as to how the two would match-up against one another, given that tennis is about match-ups, assuming that Roger doesn't have an out-of-body experience.

As to your question regarding Federer at his peak, there were moments of vulnerability even during that three-year stretch. Players failed to capitalize, but he didn't always bring his "best" tennis. Lastly, when exactly was Fed in his "peak" ? Agassi took him to 4-sets in 2005, Baghdatis was the better player in much of their Australian Open Final in 2006, and Roddick managed to push him to 4-sets in New York. This goes without mentioning his 2005 defeat to Safin in the Australian Open. Was 2007 his best year ? I mean, he was pushed to 5-sets on grass by Nadal. Djokovic choked away three set points in New York. At what point has Fed performed so well as to warrant such a dismissive view of a 6-time Grand Slam Champion ?

More important, with the exception of Andy Roddick, how many players have had their "clocks cleaned" by Roger ?

MalwareDie
04-24-2009, 05:02 AM
It's laughable that habibko and Clay Death think that Federer has a good backhand and that it is better than Edberg's.

ORGASMATRON
04-24-2009, 05:08 AM
It's laughable that habibko and Clay Death think that Federer has a good backhand and that it is better than Edberg's.

Not really. If Edbergs BH was eploited the same way Feds was the same thing would have happened if not worse. But Edberg would have been by the net so its irrelevent, something Roger can defnitely learn from. Roger has a classical one hander there is no doubt about it.

heartbroken
04-24-2009, 05:32 AM
So Federer's record against serve-and-volleyers is of no significance when trying to gauge how he would perform against one of the best serve-and-volleyers of all time ? The point is: Sampras was beyond his prime in 2001, Henman and Rafter were pulverized by an over-the-hill Edberg, which raises a simple question: How does one conclude that Edberg would have his "clock cleaned" by a player who has struggled against players who couldn't even beat an out-of-form Edberg ?

We're talking about the same guy who lost in straight sets on clay to Radek Stepanek last year, another serve-and-volleyer. I'm not disputing the fact that Federer playing his best would dismantle Edberg. I'm inquiring as to how the two would match-up against one another, given that tennis is about match-ups, assuming that Roger doesn't have an out-of-body experience.

As to your question regarding Federer at his peak, there were moments of vulnerability even during that three-year stretch. Players failed to capitalize, but he didn't always bring his "best" tennis. Lastly, when exactly was Fed in his "peak" ? Agassi took him to 4-sets in 2005, Baghdatis was the better player in much of their Australian Open Final in 2006, and Roddick managed to push him to 4-sets in New York. This goes without mentioning his 2005 defeat to Safin in the Australian Open. Was 2007 his best year ? I mean, he was pushed to 5-sets on grass by Nadal. Djokovic choked away three set points in New York. At what point has Fed performed so well as to warrant such a dismissive view of a 6-time Grand Slam Champion ?

More important, with the exception of Andy Roddick, how many players have had their "clocks cleaned" by Roger ?

- I think any of Fed's results have signifigance as long as he had reached his peak, for a hypo scenario.
- All players have moments of vulnerability, but hypo matchups aren't really about that, are they?
- When was Fed at his peak? Hmmm, I might go with the general vicinity where we won 3 slams a year? :D

I'm not saying that I think your comments are right or wrong, necessarily, but I'm not sure what you are trying to compare here. Usually when these hypo scenarios come up, people like to envision the best of player A against the best of player B. Do you want the "B" game of Federer against the "A" game of Edberg? Do you want the "C" game of Federer against the "C" game of Edberg? What are you trying to ask here?

When I envision the "A" game of Sampras or Federer at their peak, I frankly expect either of them to be able to inflict serious pain on most opponents. I'm not dismissing Edberg's accomplishments. I just don't know that he would fare well against the very best that Federer could bring. On paper, I don't see him being a nightmare matchup for Fed, but who knows how it would actually turn out? I never said I could prove my opinion on this. If you are going to ask hypothetical questions, you have to be willing to accept varying opinions, without asking people to prove things that cannot be proven...

Cheers,
Dave

ORGASMATRON
04-24-2009, 05:44 AM
Federer would have ripped Edberg a new one, its no contest. Fed loves a target and he returns well. Those stats dont mean jack cept for the one against Sampy. It was all before he started dominating. Im getting tired of these stupid threads anyway.

fast_clay
04-24-2009, 05:51 AM
its a tough one... but its definitely a valid call to say that federer would have immense trouble with edberg...

this is mainly due to the fact that each edberg service point would have started above the shoulder on the backhand wing, and this would set the pattern for the whole match on edberg's serve... i believe the strength of this play would have been the key to the match-up... and i see problems for federer breaking this down seeing as though it was how edberg based much of his attack around...

just like nadal and co. have trapped federer down on the backhand side during matches and as such have stunted federer's ability to play natural, instinctive, and expressive tennis - guys like rafter, henman and edberg also control the flow of the match such is their attacking prowess would have federer having to be the the one making the plays to get out of tough positions time and time again - i think federer does this at ease for two years of his reign, outside of this its pretty much even money imo... if these style of attacking players hadn't suddenly disappeared from the game, i would think that federer would have honed his attacking skill much, much more, yet, as they did disapppear, there is no real need to take the net away from someone constantly for an entire match ala vs sampras 01...

prima donna
04-24-2009, 05:54 AM
- I think any of Fed's results have signifigance as long as he had reached his peak, for a hypo scenario.
- All players have moments of vulnerability, but hypo matchups aren't really about that, are they?
- When was Fed at his peak? Hmmm, I might go with the general vicinity where we won 3 slams a year? :D

I'm not saying that I think your comments are right or wrong, necessarily, but I'm not sure what you are trying to compare here. Usually when these hypo scenarios come up, people like to envision the best of player A against the best of player B. Do you want the "B" game of Federer against the "A" game of Edberg? Do you want the "C" game of Federer against the "C" game of Edberg? What are you trying to ask here?

When I envision the "A" game of Sampras or Federer at their peak, I frankly expect either of them to be able to inflict serious pain on most opponents. I'm not dismissing Edberg's accomplishments. I just don't know that he would fare well against the very best that Federer could bring. On paper, I don't see him being a nightmare matchup for Fed, but who knows how it would actually turn out? I never said I could prove my opinion on this. If you are going to ask hypothetical questions, you have to be willing to accept varying opinions, without asking people to prove things that cannot be proven...

Cheers,
Dave
There would be too many variables involved to objectively create a feasible, hypothetical scenario. For instance, under what conditions ? Wimbledon '93 or Wimbledon '03 ? I guess I'm more interested in how the two would match up given their respective strengths, not in a particular hypothetical match per se.

Yes, Edberg would be incapable of absorbing Federer's best tennis; however, few players have actually faced Federer's best tennis, as demonstrated by the results cited in my last post. How would Edberg fare against the Fed who lost to Nalbandian at the TMC ? How about the Federer of '04 who lost to Henman despite his demolition of Hewitt in the USO final -- never mind the Federer of '09. The Fed of '07 ?

How about the technical aspects of the game and how each player matches up against certain styles of tennis ?

prima donna
04-24-2009, 06:02 AM
Dave, (if you don't mind me referring to you as such) would you be willing to concede that Edberg's backhand was (in his heyday) superior to that of Federer ?

heartbroken
04-24-2009, 06:33 AM
I guess I'm more interested in how the two would match up given their respective strengths, not in a particular hypothetical match per se.

This is one really, REALLY, subtle distinction! I guess it is a little more clear to you than it is to me, because I see these as basically the same thing, just maybe from a slightly different angle. Then again, it's late here in my corner of the world. Maybe with a good night's sleep I can appreciate the difference a bit more. :D

Are you saying that Fed was prone to lapses that Edberg was not? Do you think Fed's competition was relatively weak, in that someone should have taken advantage of those lapses, and yet nobody did? I'm just trying to hone in on your point...

Nobody always brings their best tennis, but then again, it isn't always necessary. If you can win the match, that's really what matters. I have a hard time declaring a guy vulnerable when we wins at the pace that Federer won from 04-07. He had some bad matches, but he still won 11 slams during that time. Quality of competition is a whole other debate. It's a fair question to ask, but there is likely to be good and bad for most players when it comes to the quality of their competition. I simply ask people to be consistent with how they "apply the rules", so to speak. If we are going to look at Federer's failures, it's only fair to look at the failures of Edberg, Sampras, etc...

heartbroken
04-24-2009, 06:46 AM
Dave, (if you don't mind me referring to you as such) would you be willing to concede that Edberg's backhand was (in his heyday) superior to that of Federer ?

Not at all. :D I don't know...can I phone a friend or poll the audience? :D

Seriously, if I were going to answer that question, I would have to spend some time watching old matches for the sole purpose of analyzing the backhand. For one thing, my memories of Edberg aren't nearly as vivid as my memories of Federer. I can barely remember what I had for lunch yesterday, and Edberg is far enough back that the memory can get fuzzy. I'm old. Make that old, AND tired! I better get some rest...

Cheers,
Dave

prima donna
04-24-2009, 06:49 AM
This is one really, REALLY, subtle distinction! I guess it is a little more clear to you than it is to me ...
One loses sight of the variables involved by merely asking: Federer '07 vs Edberg '85 Wimbledon/Aussie Open ?- who would win ? (Australia, for example, was played on grass in '85 and '87 when Edberg beat Wilander and Cash, while Wimbledon in '07 was quite different from Wimbledon '85). Hence, there's no way of comparing the two. The most logical approach seems to be rooted in a technical approach.

It's easier to look at Fed's forehand and conclude that he'd create problems for Edberg from that wing; in a similar fashion, one can easily conclude that Edberg's kick-serve to Fed's backhand would create problems for Federer. Edberg was a maestro when it came to disrupting the rhythm of an opponent; Federer is a maestro when it comes to feeding off of the rhythm offered to him by the opposition. Of course, we could also choose to disregard these factors and just conclude that Federer would play out of his mind, thus demoralizing Edberg.

6-1, 6-1, 6-2
65 Winners
8 UFEs
Winner: Federer

That's not so much fun, now is it ?

prima donna
04-24-2009, 06:59 AM
_T_wrixmYGc&
fTCibMVHfyU&
Z93SGhabTLw&
qqYEUX-WsNU&
raZ-ltWuS9I

fast_clay
04-24-2009, 07:30 AM
heh heh... krickstein was on the wrong end of many of those long career highlight points re: vs connors '91 us open...

Mechlan
04-24-2009, 07:36 AM
Would have been a fantastic contest. Federer favored on all surfaces, but this is one I would love to see. As for the matchup itself, I feel it would be close, just because the S&V game takes Roger out of his rhythm and Edberg's kick serve was magnificent. That said, people here seem to have forgotten that in Federer's prime, nobody except Nadal was able to generate enough topspin to really get the ball high enough to Federer's backhand to hurt him. Everyone knew that was his weakness (Agassi said as much in 2006), but it wasn't easy to actually do this consistently due to Federer's movement and huge arsenal of other weapons.

The problem with the comparison, as with all cross-generational comparisons, is that it's really hard to decide how to compare because the technology has changed to much. If we use modern equipment, Edberg has absolutely no chance. If we're using older equipment, Edberg has the edge. As kind of an abstract hypothetical though, this would have been a great one.

Benny_Maths
04-24-2009, 07:54 AM
Yeah Fed lost to Stepanek, so serve volleyers must cause him an awful lot of grief. By the way here is a black dog, therefore all dogs are black.:rolleyes:

prima donna
04-24-2009, 08:36 AM
Yeah Fed lost to Stepanek, so serve volleyers must cause him an awful lot of grief. By the way here is a black dog, therefore all dogs are black.:rolleyes:
The logical retort would have been to point to Roger's straight set victory over Stepanek at the USO in 2008, which more than made up for Rome. Then again, it's always easier to reply caustically rather than logically. We've already been through this -- there are other examples of Roger having struggled against serve-and-volleyers.

Not quite sure what people hope to prove with these sorts of caustic remarks. I've spent years defending Roger -- but does that mean I have to delude myself about his game ? We've established that Roger would dismantle Edberg (and most players) in his best form. There's only one minor problem: at times, perhaps more times than not, one is unable to produce one's best form.

GuiroNl
04-24-2009, 09:06 AM
Thread Progression

-Make sure post sounds and reads like a college essay - Check
-Insult majority of the forum in introduction - Check
-Form paper thin argument with skeptical at best facts - Check
-Surprisingly, "Generate Intrigue" and get some decent response - Check
-Refuse to listen to/discuss posters responses - Check
-Insult said posters/talk to them like their 5 years old - Check
-Throw temper tantrum/thread degenerates into spamming about Nadal/Djokovic/Buffalo chicken strips - In progress

:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:

fast_clay
04-24-2009, 09:23 AM
There's only one minor problem: at times, perhaps more times than not, one is unable to produce one's best form.

yes... and to ponder on how good that winning % at GS SF and GS F would be had there been a couple of sound, true attackers across the net... but ponder is all...

you didnt post the fed vs agassi and edberg vs agassi matchup in the first post... why was that...?

ORGASMATRON
04-24-2009, 09:26 AM
:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:

:haha::haha::haha::haha::haha:

prima donna
04-24-2009, 09:34 AM
you didnt post the fed vs agassi and edberg vs agassi matchup in the first post... why was that...?
It crossed my mind, but like so many other things, it seemed unpopular to do so. So I decided to leave that task to someone else. Unfortunately, it's difficult to have a serious discussion when people tend to harp on trivial matters, such as tone.

Anyway, let's give it a shot:
Edberg v Agassi (3-6)
Fed v Agassi (8-3)

Fun point between Edberg & Andre
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0Cco1LNMXg

ORGASMATRON
04-24-2009, 09:40 AM
It crossed my mind, but like so many other things, it seemed unpopular to do so. So I decided to leave that task to someone else. Unfortunately, it's difficult to have a serious discussion when people tend to harp on trivial matters, such as tone.

Anyway, let's give it a shot:
Edberg v Agassi (3-6)
Fed v Agassi (8-3)

Fun point between Edberg & Andre
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0Cco1LNMXg

PWNED!!!

fast_clay
04-24-2009, 10:57 AM
yeah... ummm... mighty impressive owning an old man 8-3 ruanz...

Merton
04-24-2009, 11:52 AM
That would be great to watch on all surfaces, I guess Edberg's forehand would be exposed on clay, Roger would have an edge on grass and only a small edge on hard but one could make a case for the other way round (Small edge on grass and edge on hard).

The key is that Roger's return of serve would be important, while in my mind Edberg's kick serve would be more dangerous on hard courts.

gjr
04-24-2009, 11:53 AM
I could go on for ages asking which Fed is playing which Edberg, where are they playing, what are they playing with and when they are playing.

By all accounts the speed of surfaces has changed. S&V is dead. There is only one decent S&V player currently active. And it's not Stepanek. It's Federer. He doesn't play it often but is the best S&V player there is at the moment.

Federer has never played a decent S&V player at their peak on a fast surface so no-one knows if he could have handled Edberg or Sampras.

Lets not get into the Stepanek loss either becuase thats not a realistic result in the grand scheme of things. All great players get turned over by some no-mark, no matter what tennis they play.

So could Edberg handle slower courts and still be competive against Federer? Could Federer handle the faster S&V mastery of Edberg on a slick Wimbledon surface?

Only a guess but peak Fed still beats most players who have played on grass or hard.

Merton
04-24-2009, 11:55 AM
this is not even close. Edberg was good in his day obviously but he would be useless against Fed.

the game has progressed and Fed played it--at the height of his powers--as well as it could be played. it was certainly sufficient to win him no less than 13 slams. this dude use to lose no more than 6-7 matches a year. it was simply a far superior game than what Edberg could do on the court.

Fed was superior to Edberg in every aspect of the game:

1. he was a better mover
2. had a bigger forehand
3. bigger backhand and more variety off that wing
4. better return
5. better at the forecourt



The bolded parts do not pass the laugh test.

ORGASMATRON
04-24-2009, 11:56 AM
yeah... ummm... mighty impressive owning an old man 8-3 ruanz...

Agassi was winning slams at an old age in case you forgot. Remeber how he got owned in the final of the MC ne year? IF that sisnt own i dont know what is. There was even a bagle in there if i remember correctly. Biggest own of all time.

TheBoiledEgg
04-24-2009, 01:25 PM
negative General. i have studied the game in great detail. Mac is about the best i have ever seen at the net and the forecourt. his 77 doubles title to go along with his 77 singles titles can attest to that. he was a menace at the net.

Fed is the 2nd best. Edberg simply volleyed an inferior ball at the net. while he was athletic and displayed relatively sound mechanics, Fed was far more destructive at the net at the height of his powers and he often had to volley a superior ball, the one that traveled a good 10-15 mph faster than the one Edberg had to deal with.

in addition, Fed dealt with balls that have/had significantly more spin.

LMAO
Federer isnt even in the top 10000 of volleyers ever.
cant slice to save his ass, BH as good as it is, its a mess.

Edberg = about 10 times as good as Rafter was at S & V

alfonsojose
04-24-2009, 01:41 PM
Get outta here.
:haha: :haha:

TheBoiledEgg
04-24-2009, 01:46 PM
Aisam Ul- Qureshi is a better S&V than Federer.

Dougie
04-24-2009, 03:27 PM
Clay Death certainly has balls to suggest Federer has a better backhand than Edberg. But heīs actually right. Edbergīs backhand was solid, smooth and nice to watch. But because of these qualities itīs almost become a myth. It was actually not THAT effective or reliable. He could pass and rally with the best, but he didnīt make that many winners off his backhand, and sometimes committed easy errors. Federer has a better backhand, not to mention forehand, which is not even a contest. From the back of the court, Federer is clearly better.

At the net however, Clay Death is off. Edberg was quite possibly the best volleyer there ever was, and Federer, while he is good at the net, is not even close. Edbergīs backhand volley especially is among the greatest shots in tennis, no contest here.

As for serve...hmm...tough one, Federer might have a slight edge here, but they canīt really be compared. for s&v purposes, Edbergīs kick and the motion itself that basically threw him to the net are the best there are. Iīm sure both of them would find each otherīs serve relatively useless for their own purposes.

As for movement, I think Federer has the slight edge. Edberg was quick coming to the net and quick with his volleys at the net, but while playing at the back he was actually a bit clumsy. This combined with his forehand would give Federer a huge edge from the back.

Iīm a huge fan of Edberg, heīs one of my all time favorites, if not THE favorite, but I think the only surface he would have a chance is fast grass, not like the grass Wimbledon has nowadays. On grass he could make the most of his s&v game.
On other surfaces Federerīs more complete game would be too much for Edberg. Itīs almost a pitty that Edbergīs weak forehand gets mentioned almost every time, but it really is a shot that might even prevent him from getting to the top 100 nowadays. It would be exploited badly by every top player nowadays.

Benny_Maths
04-24-2009, 03:48 PM
The logical retort would have been to point to Roger's straight set victory over Stepanek at the USO in 2008, which more than made up for Rome. Then again, it's always easier to reply caustically rather than logically. We've already been through this -- there are other examples of Roger having struggled against serve-and-volleyers.

No, what you suggest has no logical basis. For one thing, a single win (USO) doesn't nullify the matchup implications associated with one loss (Rome). The USO is a bigger stage but the only conclusions you could draw from a match at that tournament would be in relation to how well a player copes in more important matches. There is no logical link between the tournament being played, and how well a player generally deals with a certain playing style. The problem I had with your example was how you took one isolated example (Rome), implicitly made a general inference that therefore Fed struggles against SVs, and then concluded that Edberg would certainly be a bad matchup for Fed. All you've provided is speculation presented as if fact, so perhaps you should take your own advice.

Not quite sure what people hope to prove with these sorts of caustic remarks. I've spent years defending Roger -- but does that mean I have to delude myself about his game ? We've established that Roger would dismantle Edberg (and most players) in his best form. There's only one minor problem: at times, perhaps more times than not, one is unable to produce one's best form.

Ok so you're telling us that a player not at the top of his game can be beaten if their opponent is playing better on the day. Thanks for the brilliant insight. As for figuring out what people are getting at, a good place to start would be to consider the underlying implications of their comments, rather than taking your typically pompous approach and smothering their argument with a bunch of superfluous words which really don't have any substance.

prima donna
04-24-2009, 07:37 PM
The USO is a bigger stage but the only conclusions you could draw from a match at that tournament would be in relation to how well a player copes in more important matches.
Not so. Federer thoroughly outplayed Stepanek in New York, routinely dismissing him. Mental fortitude ("how well a player copes in more important matches") tends to be revealed in tight moments: 5th set, trying to serve out a set, converting break points, etc. Stepanek was never in any position to "choke" or suffer a mental lapse -- he just got taken to the woodshed on that particular day. Nothing to do with mental breakdowns, or "coping" with the occasion.

Fed's loss to Stepanek, on a clay court no less, just demonstrates his vulnerability against serve-and-volleyers when he's unable to produce his best tennis. He also lost to Rafter on clay, and it wasn't even close. These are both horrible losses, the latter being the more forgivable of the two due to the age factor. Clay wasn't exactly Rafter's best surface, same goes for Stepanek (despite making the finals of Hamburg).

Anyone can have a bad day, but given that Roger lost to Stepanek on one of those bad days, I'm sure that Edberg, given his level of superiority over Radek, would be capable of giving Fed plenty to think about even on a decent day. I don't dispute that a peak Fed would beat Edberg; I dispute the notion that Edberg wouldn't stand a chance against a player with such a spotty history against serve-and-volleyers, Henman being another example.

The problem I had with your example was how you took one isolated example (Rome), implicitly made a general inference that therefore Fed struggles against SVs, and then concluded that Edberg would certainly be a bad matchup for Fed.

This was just one of a few examples that I chose to cite. Oddly, it seems to be the only example that you've focused on.


Ok so you're telling us that a player not at the top of his game can be beaten if their opponent is playing better on the day. Thanks for the brilliant insight.
Federer at the top of his game, during his peak, was something never before seen in tennis. Problem is, he seldom reached that level of play.

Just to clarify: 2004 USO final = an anomaly (6/0, 7/6, 6/0 over Hewitt).

People are conflating the Federer that showed up on most occasions with the Federer that showed up on few occasions: Wimbledon Final '04 (before the rain delay), USO Final '05 (4-sets against an over-the-hill Agassi), AO '06 (Outplayed by Baghdatis for the first set and a half, but proved mentally stronger) USO '06 (Pretty much neck-and-neck with Roddick until the 4th set), Wimbledon '07 (wins in five sets over Nadal, despite facing early break points in 5th), USO '07 (Djokovic chokes away three set points in the first set).

I'd give Edberg a fighter's chance against the Federer that appeared on most occasions.

As for figuring out what people are getting at, a good place to start would be to consider the underlying implications of their comments, rather than taking your typically pompous approach and smothering their argument with a bunch of superfluous words which really don't have any substance.
My friend, I haven't the slightest idea as to who you are. We've never met. I'm not here to make friends; I'm here to discuss tennis. If you don't like the way in which I choose to express myself, add me to your ignore list. We aren't children, and I won't allow myself to become entangled in puerile quarrels.

You obviously dislike me, so you're nitpicking -- which is no different than how most people on this board approach me. Loose arguments ? Have you read any of the other threads ? If so, why don't you deconstruct those questionable arguments ?

Clay Death
04-24-2009, 07:44 PM
Clay Death certainly has balls to suggest Federer has a better backhand than Edberg. But heīs actually right. Edbergīs backhand was solid, smooth and nice to watch. But because of these qualities itīs almost become a myth. It was actually not THAT effective or reliable. He could pass and rally with the best, but he didnīt make that many winners off his backhand, and sometimes committed easy errors. Federer has a better backhand, not to mention forehand, which is not even a contest. From the back of the court, Federer is clearly better.

At the net however, Clay Death is off. Edberg was quite possibly the best volleyer there ever was, and Federer, while he is good at the net, is not even close. Edbergīs backhand volley especially is among the greatest shots in tennis, no contest here.

As for serve...hmm...tough one, Federer might have a slight edge here, but they canīt really be compared. for s&v purposes, Edbergīs kick and the motion itself that basically threw him to the net are the best there are. Iīm sure both of them would find each otherīs serve relatively useless for their own purposes.

As for movement, I think Federer has the slight edge. Edberg was quick coming to the net and quick with his volleys at the net, but while playing at the back he was actually a bit clumsy. This combined with his forehand would give Federer a huge edge from the back.

Iīm a huge fan of Edberg, heīs one of my all time favorites, if not THE favorite, but I think the only surface he would have a chance is fast grass, not like the grass Wimbledon has nowadays. On grass he could make the most of his s&v game.
On other surfaces Federerīs more complete game would be too much for Edberg. Itīs almost a pitty that Edbergīs weak forehand gets mentioned almost every time, but it really is a shot that might even prevent him from getting to the top 100 nowadays. It would be exploited badly by every top player nowadays.


no problem here. we just have to agree to disagree. Fed simply has to volley a better ball, the one with far more pace and far more spin.

and for my money, Fed is more adept at the net. call it the evolution of the sport. take the Clay Monster: he is simply a better, stronger, faster version of Borg. and he is far more lethal off the ground in that he can be very aggressive and in the modern game, he has to be just that aggressive.

as for the serve: lets examine just a few quick stats. based on 2007 stats, Fed held serve about 88% of the time or close to 90% which placed him right up there with the best of the best in the serving department.

was Edberg as deadly with his serve? and keep in mind that Fed is having to serve to players who can return significantly better than those Edberg had to face.

FedFan_2007
04-24-2009, 07:52 PM
What the hell is this stupid thread. Slams won 13-6. Mods - please drag this thread outside and shoot it.

Clay Death
04-24-2009, 07:54 PM
What the hell is this stupid thread. Slams won 13-6. Mods - please drag this thread outside and shoot it.

you tell em FedFan2007. not to mention near total domination of the sport for over 4 years.

prima donna
04-24-2009, 08:12 PM
I don't do this often: What a shitty mentality. People can agree to disagree, but to dismiss discussion altogether denotes a level of obtuseness that I don't think I've ever encountered on this forum.

This is more than hypothetical match-ups and disagreements. People like FedFan are literally dumbing down this forum. What a shame.

ORGASMATRON
04-24-2009, 08:14 PM
What the hell is this stupid thread. Slams won 13-6. Mods - please drag this thread outside and shoot it.

:lol: Funny coming from a guy who puts more weight on Nadal's 13-6(mostly on clay) h2h record against Fed then Feds 13-6 GS title advantage over Nadal.

theDreamer
04-24-2009, 08:57 PM
Fed's loss to Stepanek, on a clay court no less, just demonstrates his vulnerability against serve-and-volleyers when he's unable to produce his best tennis. He also lost to Rafter on clay, and it wasn't even close. These are both horrible losses, the latter being the more forgivable of the two due to the age factor. Clay wasn't exactly Rafter's best surface, same goes for Stepanek (despite making the finals of Hamburg).

Anyone can have a bad day, but given that Roger lost to Stepanek on one of those bad days, I'm sure that Edberg, given his level of superiority over Radek, would be capable of giving Fed plenty to think about even on a decent day. I don't dispute that a peak Fed would beat Edberg; I dispute the notion that Edberg wouldn't stand a chance against a player with such a spotty history against serve-and-volleyers, Henman being another example.


Ok, so what did Fed's loss to Volandri demonstrate?

The example with Henman, as someone already mentioned, is not a good one, considering
it went 6-1 to federer in the last 7 matches - mightn't that suggest that, to an extent, he "figured out"
how to beat Henman's s&v tennis? We all know it took a while for Federer's game to come together -
he had problems with shot selection, for example, earlier in his career, not to mention a bit of mental
instability.


People are conflating the Federer that showed up on most occasions with the Federer that showed up on few occasions: Wimbledon Final '04 (before the rain delay), USO Final '05 (4-sets against an over-the-hill Agassi), AO '06 (Outplayed by Baghdatis for the first set and a half, but proved mentally stronger) USO '06 (Pretty much neck-and-neck with Roddick until the 4th set), Wimbledon '07 (wins in five sets over Nadal, despite facing early break points in 5th), USO '07 (Djokovic chokes away three set points in the first set).

I'd give Edberg a fighter's chance against the Federer that appeared on most occasions.



I'm not sure I get your point totally here. Of course, Edberg would have a chance in their matches -
he's a quality player.
But in the end, I feel over several matches, their head to head would still heavily favour Federer -
maybe a bit like Nadal's head to head against Federer.

prima donna
04-24-2009, 09:05 PM
Ok, so what did Fed's loss to Volandri demonstrate?

The example with Henman, as someone already mentioned, is not a good one, considering
it went 6-1 to federer in the last 7 matches - mightn't that suggest that, to an extent, he "figured out"
how to beat Henman's s&v tennis? We all know it took a while for Federer's game to come together -
he had problems with shot selection, for example, earlier in his career, not to mention a bit of mental
instability. .
Valid and fair points, but Edberg was a much better volleyer than Henman.



I'm not sure I get your point totally here. Of course, Edberg would have a chance in their matches
Not according to certain members of this forum. I've been made to seem ridiculous for even suggesting that Edberg, in his prime, would give Fed a run for his money.

Fed would "clean his clock," as one respondent exclaimed.

theDreamer
04-24-2009, 09:24 PM
Valid and fair points, but Edberg was a much better volleyer than Henman.

Not according to certain members of this forum. I've been made to seem ridiculous for even suggesting that Edberg, in his prime, would give Fed a run for his money.

Fed would "clean his clock," as one respondent exclaimed.

Agreed.

FairWeatherFan
04-25-2009, 12:35 AM
Interesting thread in some ways but this is even more pointless than the usual hypothetical match-ups. This is because there is no player on tour nowadays who plays even remotely like Edberg, and so there is no way of gauging how Federer would respond.

heartbroken
04-25-2009, 05:40 AM
Valid and fair points, but Edberg was a much better volleyer than Henman.

Not according to certain members of this forum. I've been made to seem ridiculous for even suggesting that Edberg, in his prime, would give Fed a run for his money.

Fed would "clean his clock," as one respondent exclaimed.

When I said Fed "cleans his clock", I was assuming a hypo matchup of the very best that the two players could bring. From another comment you made, I thought you might have agreed that Fed at his best would dominate Edberg? Did I misunderstand you?

This is an unusual thread for a hypo scenario. As best I can tell, you seem to question the quality of competition that Fed played. I say this because of your comment that the "A" game Federer didn't show up that often, even though he still won a lot of slams. You also say that you give Edberg a fighting chance against the Federer that did usually show up. I'm guessing that you either don't believe that Fed could raise his game if need be, or that the ability of Edberg to disrupt rhythm might prevent him from doing so? Either way, you seem to suggest that Edberg's "A" game would be competitive with Fed's "B" game. If that's your point, then I agree with you. If players like Fed and Sampras don't bring their best, for whatever reason, they are most certainly beatable. This is especially true if playing a capable champion like Edberg.

If I have not understood your points correctly, my apologies. I've done my best to take the varying comments, and try to piece together the gist of your argument. I don't know if I've succeeded or not. In any case, I don't think I can add any more to this discussion... :wavey:

Cheers,
Dave

prima donna
04-25-2009, 06:02 AM
When I said Fed "cleans his clock", I was assuming a hypo matchup of the very best that the two players could bring. From another comment you made, I thought you might have agreed that Fed at his best would dominate Edberg? Did I misunderstand you?

This is an unusual thread for a hypo scenario. As best I can tell, you seem to question the quality of competition that Fed played. I say this because of your comment that the "A" game Federer didn't show up that often, even though he still won a lot of slams. You also say that you give Edberg a fighting chance against the Federer that did usually show up. I'm guessing that you either don't believe that Fed could raise his game if need be, or that the ability of Edberg to disrupt rhythym might prevent him from doing so? Either way, you seem to suggest that Edberg's "A" game would be competitive with Fed's "B" game. If that's your point, then I agree with you. If players like Fed and Sampras don't bring their best, for whatever reason, they are most certainly beatable. This is especially true if playing a capable champion like Edberg.

If I have not understood your points correctly, my apologies. I've done my best to take the varying comments, and try to piece together the gist of your argument. I don't know if I've succeeded or not. In any case, I don't think I can add any more to this discussion... :wavey:

Cheers,
Dave

Bingo.

Benny_Maths
04-25-2009, 06:59 AM
Not so. Federer thoroughly outplayed Stepanek in New York, routinely dismissing him. Mental fortitude ("how well a player copes in more important matches") tends to be revealed in tight moments: 5th set, trying to serve out a set, converting break points, etc. Stepanek was never in any position to "choke" or suffer a mental lapse -- he just got taken to the woodshed on that particular day. Nothing to do with mental breakdowns, or "coping" with the occasion.

Note the wording. I said something along the lines of the importance of a tournament could reveal how well a player copes on bigger stages. In other words, that is the limit of, but not necessarily the attainable extent of, the conclusions that one could draw, on the basis of a comparison between the outcome of two matches from two tournaments. But that wasn't the point. The issue was about matchups, which have little to do with the tournament being played.

I disagreed with the logic you used; you cited one of Federer's losses to a S&V player and then at the very least implicity asserted that it follows that he would therefore struggle against another S&Ver who he has never played against. Hence the reason for the 'here is black dog, therefore all dogs are black' comment. You appear to have misconstrued that statement as an attempt to illustrate that Federer is a better player than Stepanek. That wasn't what I was trying to do - I was arguing against the thought process you appeared to be using to draw conclusions. So your snide remark about how it would've been better to use the USO match as a retort was irrelevant.

Fed's loss to Stepanek, on a clay court no less, just demonstrates his vulnerability against serve-and-volleyers when he's unable to produce his best tennis. He also lost to Rafter on clay, and it wasn't even close. These are both horrible losses, the latter being the more forgivable of the two due to the age factor. Clay wasn't exactly Rafter's best surface, same goes for Stepanek (despite making the finals of Hamburg).

A lot of the examples you use to convey your point are either one off losses that will inevitablly occur at some point, or are from a time when Federer had not reached a level which people would typically think of when considering hypothetical matchups. When Federer's H2H against Henman was 1-6, he had lost to Henman on all sorts of surfaces. But we all know what happened to that H2H. My point is, Federer's results before he really reached his peak level are irrelevant in discussions about hypothetical matchups. When I refer to his 'peak level, I don't mean his absolute best. But rather, I'm referring to how well Federer generally did during his peak years.


Anyone can have a bad day, but given that Roger lost to Stepanek on one of those bad days, I'm sure that Edberg, given his level of superiority over Radek, would be capable of giving Fed plenty to think about even on a decent day. I don't dispute that a peak Fed would beat Edberg; I dispute the notion that Edberg wouldn't stand a chance against a player with such a spotty history against serve-and-volleyers, Henman being another example.

I'm not saying Federer would steamroll every S&V player that he could play in a hypothetical match. However, to me it's a very weak argument to cite Federer's losses against Stepanek and Rafter as reasons for why he would have trouble playing against any S&Ver in a hypothetical matchup.

You obviously dislike me, so you're nitpicking -- which is no different than how most people on this board approach me. Loose arguments ? Have you read any of the other threads ? If so, why don't you deconstruct those questionable arguments ?

I must emphasise that I don't dislike you, I have no reason to hold a grudge against someone on an internet forum. I merely disapprove of that particular Stepanek example you used. I'm just going to let it go. There is nothing to be gained from further discussion as we've already established what our views are.

Merton
04-25-2009, 09:28 AM
Clay Death certainly has balls to suggest Federer has a better backhand than Edberg. But heīs actually right. Edbergīs backhand was solid, smooth and nice to watch. But because of these qualities itīs almost become a myth. It was actually not THAT effective or reliable. He could pass and rally with the best, but he didnīt make that many winners off his backhand, and sometimes committed easy errors. Federer has a better backhand, not to mention forehand, which is not even a contest. From the back of the court, Federer is clearly better.


It is correct to point out that Edberg's backhand was inconsistent, in fact it is the reason I would never vote for it as a better shot than Guga's backhand. However, credit must be given to the way Edberg imposed his style of play to his opponents, covering his weaknesses. That is something that cannot be said about Roger, when his opponents could expose his backhand (and I don't have in mind only Nadal here) he was often unable to respond.

groundstroke
04-25-2009, 11:54 AM
I don't want to put you down or influence your ego, but you have gotten this all wrong, but I think it's important to understand that your comparison is all wrong.

I'm going to start with the simple stuff first, because you really show a lack of understanding, or maybe you are trolling, but even if you are, it's important other people will look at this and see how the comparison is really made.



Game analysis:
Forehand: Federer by far
Backhand: Edberg by far
Serve: Tie (Kick-serve - Edberg) (Slice - Tie) (Flat - Fed)
Passing: Federer (better forehand pass)
Movement: Tie
Defense: Federer
Mental fortitude: Edberg (came back from a break down in the 5th set at Wimbledon against Mecir and Becker, also repeated this feat against three successive opponents (Krajicek, Lendl, Chang) at '92 USO)


Federer's forehand eclipses Edberg's forehand by so much even comparing them two isn't really a great comparison.

Edberg's backhand by far? I don't think so, you probably didn't watch Edberg because you sound very young, he did have a great backhand - but Federer's backhand is just as good if not better, Federer has more variety on the backhand.

Serve? Cannot even believe you are comparing Edberg's serve to Federer's serve.

Movement? The courts were at a different speed back then, really hard to make a decision here but Federer at his peak would eat up Edberg at his peak when it comes to movement.

Mental fortitude? Edberg?! Are you forgetting who Federer is? Again - this is another reason on why I think you're trolling because you are so blatantly wrong, but Federer has great mental fortitude, he's come back from 2 sets on numerous occassions - but that really isn't what mental fortitude is.

Mental fortitude in my view - is when you are 40-0 down on your serve, in the Wimbledon final, in the fifth set with the scores 2-1 to the opponent, how can you mentally make yourself play more positive in that stage? Federer has done this time after time, his break point save conversion is extremely high. Example: Fed vs Nadal, Wimbledon 2007 final, 5th set, Nadal leading 2-1 at 40:0, has 3 break points, Federer starts playing stunning tennis, absolutely majestic tennis and wins the next 5 games.

PD opening a thread in GM, now that's a bold move.

I will have to disagree with the mental fortitude part, Federer at his peak had a legendary mentality, how easy is it to come back down two sets against a player like Nadal and win the 5th set so convincingly like he did? this is just one example.

maybe you have the recent Fed in mind..

it's a great matchup and tennis would have been the winner, but I give peak Federer (2004/2007) the edge in most matches, that Federer played S&Vs with closed eyes.

it would be interesting if someone posted Federer's statistics against S&V players in general.

How long have you been watching tennis for and how old are you, if you mind me asking?

How difficult is it to put oneself in such a precarious position against an 18-year-old ? Moreover, Edberg's comebacks came on the grand stage -- Wimbledon, not to mention his three consecutive USO comebacks.

:haha: This is the pick of the bunch.


--

On a last note, a comparison shouldn't be made by looking at forehand, backhand, passing, etc. too much, it's made on the game style, it's made on the emotions the players make you feel.

If Federer and Edberg gave you same feeling after they made an immense backhand pass - that's a comparison, but the majority of GM haven't seen Federer play in 2005, let alone Edberg in his prime.

ORGASMATRON
04-25-2009, 11:59 AM
Ridiculous thread. Fed won more then double the slams Edmug did.

Dougie
04-25-2009, 12:32 PM
no problem here. we just have to agree to disagree. Fed simply has to volley a better ball, the one with far more pace and far more spin.

and for my money, Fed is more adept at the net. call it the evolution of the sport. take the Clay Monster: he is simply a better, stronger, faster version of Borg. and he is far more lethal off the ground in that he can be very aggressive and in the modern game, he has to be just that aggressive.

as for the serve: lets examine just a few quick stats. based on 2007 stats, Fed held serve about 88% of the time or close to 90% which placed him right up there with the best of the best in the serving department.

was Edberg as deadly with his serve? and keep in mind that Fed is having to serve to players who can return significantly better than those Edberg had to face.

I agree that Federer has to volley faster, tougher shots at the net, but why would that make him superior to Edberg? This is the problem with comparing eras. Edberg was a superb volleyer in his time, and while the passing shots were not quite the same calibre that Nadal, for example, produces nowadays, there is no reason to suggest Edberg wouldnīt have handled faster balls as well. What Iīm saying is that we canīt hold the current level of play against someone who played at a different era.

As for the serve, Federerīs statistics are convincing, but holding your serve includes other variables than just the serve itself, so you canīt just look at the percentages and decide which one has the better serve. Obviously on slower surfaces like clay Edberg was likely to lose his serve more often than Federer, but that has more to do with his groundstrokes than the serve itself. And no, Edberg was definitely not deadly with his serve, not like Karlovic or Ivanisevic. But he had a great kick and placement, as well as sufficient power, and the way he combined it with his volleys is the key. The best s&v game there ever was!

FairWeatherFan
04-25-2009, 01:09 PM
However, credit must be given to the way Edberg imposed his style of play to his opponents, covering his weaknesses. That is something that cannot be said about Roger, when his opponents could expose his backhand (and I don't have in mind only Nadal here) he was often unable to respond.

What is this meant to mean? Edberg's weak forehand was exploited often and was definitely an Achilles Heel.
If Federer did not cover his supposedly weak backhand well, he would not have won 13 slams.

Macbrother
04-25-2009, 02:34 PM
What is this meant to mean? Edberg's weak forehand was exploited often and was definitely an Achilles Heel.
If Federer did not cover his supposedly weak backhand well, he would not have won 13 slams.

Exactly. With the sole exception of Nadal, specifically on clay, that "weakness" was virtually impregnable at the height of his powers.

Merton
04-25-2009, 02:49 PM
What is this meant to mean? Edberg's weak forehand was exploited often and was definitely an Achilles Heel.
If Federer did not cover his supposedly weak backhand well, he would not have won 13 slams.

Apples and oranges, obviously Edberg's forehand was a much greater weakness than Roger's backhand. I only claimed that Edberg was able to cover the inconsistency of his backhand from the backcourt better than Roger covered his, when Roger needed to do so.

Exactly. With the sole exception of Nadal, specifically on clay, that "weakness" was virtually impregnable at the height of his powers.

It is unfair to examine such issues only over the peak period of the players. Then why could I not take Edberg's two title runs at the US Open and dismiss the rest of his career?

For Roger's backhand, it is not just about Nadal. See the exhibits Felix Mantilla from Rome 2003 and Al Costa from Rome 2004. The latter was during Roger's peak years, with Al Costa far from his peak.

Action Jackson
04-25-2009, 02:58 PM
Ridiculous thread. Fed won more then double the slams Edmug did.

Ridiculous comment and you don't even know why.

ORGASMATRON
04-25-2009, 03:15 PM
Ridiculous comment and you don't even know why.

Your right i dont :)

Action Jackson
04-25-2009, 03:38 PM
Your right i dont :)

I will ask you this. Does Fed have the best single hander of all time?

ORGASMATRON
04-25-2009, 03:44 PM
I will ask you this. Does Fed have the best single hander of all time?

Duh, of course not :rolleyes:

Action Jackson
04-25-2009, 03:46 PM
Duh, of course not :rolleyes:

Thank you.

ORGASMATRON
04-25-2009, 03:50 PM
Thank you.

In fact Edbergs could have been better, although i never saw it under pressure like when Nadal moonballs it to death.

rocketassist
04-25-2009, 06:30 PM
Edberg is a million miles better on grass than anyone Federer beat at Wimbledon (apart from Sampras of course)

Byrd
04-25-2009, 06:51 PM
Apparently Federer is better than Nadal because he has double the amount of slams he has, who knew...

prima donna
04-25-2009, 07:48 PM
Edberg DTL backhand (0:27)
guOhaa_xwf8

Matt01
04-25-2009, 09:16 PM
Get outta here.


:lol:

Fed may have won some more Slams than Stefan but at least Stefan didn't come across as arrogrant and bitter in defeat and didn't need to badmouth his opponents :rolleyes:

And Edberg's game was of course much more beautiful to watch anyway.

Macbrother
04-25-2009, 09:47 PM
Apples and oranges, obviously Edberg's forehand was a much greater weakness than Roger's backhand. I only claimed that Edberg was able to cover the inconsistency of his backhand from the backcourt better than Roger covered his, when Roger needed to do so.

But that's the exact claim that is the problem. If Federer was unable to cover his inconsistency when he needed to why was he so successful? Edberg's service was arguably just as good and he certainly volleyed better, however who here would not argue Federer wasn't vastly superior at the backcourt? Please clearly justify your claim as to why Edberg can cover his supposed weakness better than Federer when Federer was, by far, the more complete player at the baseline.


It is unfair to examine such issues only over the peak period of the players. Then why could I not take Edberg's two title runs at the US Open and dismiss the rest of his career?

For Roger's backhand, it is not just about Nadal. See the exhibits Felix Mantilla from Rome 2003 and Al Costa from Rome 2004. The latter was during Roger's peak years, with Al Costa far from his peak.

It's not unfair at all. That is always the entire crux of these discussions, we are talking about players at their best, right? I mean we're not talking about Edberg at C level versus Federer at D level. Correct me if I'm wrong? Ok so Costa was able to beat Federer in 3 at Rome, on clay, Federer straight setted Costa in every other victory, two of those in '01. What exactly is your point? Yes Federer lost matches in his career, sometimes because he wasn't at his best, sometimes because of his backhand, and? In the vast majority of his matches he covered it just fine. Incredible movement, variety off the weaker wing, a forehand that is so strong you are always in control of the rallies so your backhand cannot be attacked; these are how you make up for your "weakness," and not surprisingly, Federer had all of this.

groundstroke
04-28-2009, 04:41 PM
Edberg DTL backhand (0:27)
guOhaa_xwf8
Here's an even better one, Edberg RUNNING DTL backhand (0.26)
zGjau54smvQp&fmt=18

aferlo
04-28-2009, 07:00 PM
I loved Edberg play a lot. He was one of the more elegant player you can imagine. But tennis has improved so much, balls fly a lot faster, players are more fit, so I cannot imagine how that marvelous player could beat not only Federer but number 20 in the ranks. If you see games of the 80īs, seems that they are played in slow motion.