[juan27]

Originally Posted by Action Jackson

No, Federer benefited on clay all of them have benefited on different surfaces hence the comment.

in the case of clay I think that was the weathers conditions of that year in 2009 in where roland garros was faster similar with the year of that agassi won rg too.

but I think that federer with fast courts in this era I mean after 2008 , the guy would win more.

but if roger played with players like in the 90s . the things would be more balance

[Action Jackson]

Originally Posted by juan27

in the case of clay I think that was the weathers conditions of that year in 2009 in where roland garros was faster similar with the year of that agassi won rg too.

but I think that federer with fast courts in this era I mean after 2008 , the guy would win more.

but if roger played with players like in the 90s . the things would be more balance

That was not the point of the comment about whether Federer would do better in a different era considering he started before homogenisation.

The point is very clear and simple, that apart from movement there is so little difference between the surface speeds therefore it much easier for them to be breaking the records they did which is exactly what Federer was saying.

[Honestly]

Originally Posted by Action Jackson

That was not the point of the comment about whether Federer would do better in a different era considering he started before homogenisation.

The point is very clear and simple, that apart from movement there is so little difference between the surface speeds therefore it much easier for them to be breaking the records they did which is exactly what Federer was saying.

Yeah it's a joke era. They may as well play everything on exactly the same surface that suits pushing grinders and hand them all career slams. Tennis has been dead post 90's.

[GOATsol]

Federer actually has the game to win slams on all different surfaces.

Nadull on the other hand was lucky that he played in this era. If the courts were fast, he would have 0 slams off clay.

[Tag]

Originally Posted by GOATsol

Federer actually has the game to win slams on all different surfaces.

Nadull on the other hand was lucky that he played in this era. If the courts were fast, he would have 0 slams off clay.

frauderer wouldn't be sniffing the french open in the 90s

he might have a better head to head with nadal though; he wouldn't get far enough in clay tournaments to meet him

[heya]

Thanks to the USA players, Federer had easy draws everywhere, and Agassi was a bigger threat to him at age 35. cake walk = ass kiss Federer

[juan27]

Originally Posted by heya

Thanks to the USA players, Federer had easy draws everywhere, and Agassi was a bigger threat to him at age 35. cake walk = ass kiss Federer

agassi it`s more dangerous in very fast courts than today`s murray.

anyway , action jackson I said that federer won in rg because the weather conditions made more faster rg that year , and federer in peak mode without nadal would be capable to win roland garros.

I don`t consider that roger was beneficited by homogenization on clay , he played several final facing very slow courts in roland garros beetwen 2005-2007

[juan27]

Originally Posted by Tag

frauderer wouldn't be sniffing the french open in the 90s

he might have a better head to head with nadal though; he wouldn't get far enough in clay tournaments to meet him

if andres gomez or agassi won roland garros , federer why not?????

federer only problem on clay was and is nadal`s left forehand with high bouncing to his backhand , but in the 90s nobody was similar to nadal or have his physicall condition

[heya]

35 year old Agassi gave a tough 3 set fight vs. Nadal on hardcourt. Federer needed a bad umpire to win Miami 2005.

[juan27]

bla bla , guys like you that not write nothing interesant and never talk about tennis are boring.

agassi and federer played amazing matches especially beetwen the years 2002-2005 , that agassi was a much hard than all this tour with the exceptio of the big-3 and close with murray

[pepita1964]

Agassi was much more a player than Djokovic and Murray.Now what you can see one dimensional playing style from everyone the difference is that some of them can run faster and do not get tired and others are not so fast and get tired. The old Fed had the most aces at WTF and most hot shots.

[juan27]

agassi was a genius too , a guy without big serve and playing from the baseline was capable of winning all in an era of very fast courts and great servers.

I miss that kind of tennis , but we need fast courts again

[Action Jackson]

Originally Posted by juan27

agassi it`s more dangerous in very fast courts than today`s murray.

anyway , action jackson I said that federer won in rg because the weather conditions made more faster rg that year , and federer in peak mode without nadal would be capable to win roland garros.

I don`t consider that roger was beneficited by homogenization on clay , he played several final facing very slow courts in roland garros beetwen 2005-2007

You are as bad as the people you are complaining against. The fact the surfaces and games have homogenised benefited Federer as well, it's your too biased to see this. Nadal is the only player on clay in this generation who plays like an old school clay court player albeit adapted to modern times with a lot of ability on the surface. He toys with Fed on clay by breaking down the backhand, this is not a new tactic and so damn simple.

Which leads to the next point Fed struggled with the old school guys when they were past their past on the surface or do you need plenty of examples. As the surfaces have become closer that style of game on clay apart from Nadal and to a very poor version Andreev has become obsolete, unlike when Fed started guys like that were still playing. Therefore he gained the benefit on clay because of this.

You can't bitch about Nadal getting benefits from a slower and high bouncing grass or hardcourts getting slower or Djokovic on grass without looking Fed.

[samanosuke]

so much talking about so simple thing. Federer won RG because he wanted to win it. the end...

[Benny_Maths]

You know that Fed struggled against Nadal on clay because Nadal was still winning slams regularly when he was beating Fed. However, when Fed loses against someone who at the time of the loss is a non-factor (nevermind a consistent genuine slam contender) the story is completely different. It would then not make any sense to draw any conclusions from such losses other than it was one of those losses that just happen from time to time; like Sampras losing to Yzaga/Kucera (or Federer).