[luie]

Originally Posted by Start da Game

what happens on slow courts is that this slow surfaces crier gets time to defend and defend and defend until the other one is mentally done for the day.....that's exactly how he won his titles over roddicks, hewitts, denkos, ljubos, flakes and others in those days.....he was just a brick wall defending everything they threw at him, just redirecting their garbage safely side to side with minimum risk.....on his serve, it was the routine serve-forehand combo most times.....fedtards think that's aggression.....there were times when he got aggressive but he basically wins with his defense......not the type of player who can regularly come up with winning aggressive tennis set after set or match after match.....otherwise he wouldn't have had so many problems against nadal in his career.....

nadal came along and started defending better than him.....that's when troubles began for fed.....he saw somebody defending better than him and just couldn't do anything.....djokovic came along and is defending better than both fed and rafa.....rafa is going to up it a level and peg him back soon but that's another discussion.....

Agreed fed is More aggressive than nadull n Novak but not a pure agreessor like Sampras ,edberg , becker.
And the homogenization benefitted him because he was able to "outlast" nalbadian ,Hewitt etc.
Homogenization weaken the career slam .
IMO both fed and nadull failed in their adaption skills fed failed to figure out nadull & adapt his game & now nadull
Is failing to adapt to NOVAKs game.
Before I give nadull the benefit of the doubt that he can play on 90s grass & carpet he needs to overcome Novak.
Otherwise he will be in a similar case with fed "at the right place at the right time"

[luie]

Originally Posted by juan27

in 2004 and 2005 the surfaces were very fasters in comparassion with now....

after 2007 , the courts were very slow: australia it`s much more slown after 2007 , wimbledon too , masters cup is very slow in comparassion with houston and shangai , us open slow too.

federer defensive player????? typical bullshits of nadull`s tard.

federer defeat guys like sampras , ivanisevic , krajicek and other great servers in very fast conditions

True , Feds record against big servers is exceptional. His block bh return is ideal for big servers.

[juan27]

Originally Posted by luie

True , Feds record against big servers is exceptional. His block bh return is ideal for big servers.

yes , federer it`s a great returner of big servers in fast conditions or slow conditions.

anyway , federer is the only player of the top-4 that can win the carrer grand slam if the surfaces were like in the 90s.

start da game saying that federer won because he return all balls???? I never read bullshit like that , federer is an agressive player differetn to edberg or sampras , they were serve and volley players , federer is an agressive baseliner like agassi.

the reality is that after 2007 , the courts ere very slow , al the importants tournaments in fast courts become much more slow

[juan27]

Originally Posted by luie

Agreed fed is More aggressive than nadull n Novak but not a pure agreessor like Sampras ,edberg , becker.
And the homogenization benefitted him because he was able to "outlast" nalbadian ,Hewitt etc.
Homogenization weaken the career slam .
IMO both fed and nadull failed in their adaption skills fed failed to figure out nadull & adapt his game & now nadull
Is failing to adapt to NOVAKs game.
Before I give nadull the benefit of the doubt that he can play on 90s grass & carpet he needs to overcome Novak.
Otherwise he will be in a similar case with fed "at the right place at the right time"

federer no need slow conditions for defeat nalbandian or hewitt....

it`s ilogical.

the adaptation skills it`s a different history , some players are more dangerous that other because the styles of play.

federer`s tennis it`s perfect for nadull tennis and now novak`s tennis neutralize nadal`s tennis , it`s law of life that in some year another player rise and defeat the all domination ( federer and nadal)

[Start da Game]

Originally Posted by luie

True , Feds record against big servers is exceptional. His block bh return is ideal for big servers.

and such returns are not possible on a consistent basis on 90s grass......henman had no issues putting away fed before 2004 in the fast era.....in fact fed lost all three times to henman on carpets, it's 3-0 to henman......

come 2002, 2003, baseliners like hewitt, grosjean started getting better of henman at wimbledon.....

philippoussis's first serve should never have been returned so easily so many times but even players like alexander popp dealt with it with ease on 2003 grass......philippoussis with his mad serving took sets of peak sampras on grass in the 90s.....it's a joke that he lost a wimbledon final in straight sets......

it's just a stupid belief of clueless followers that federer is a god on fast surfaces......truth remains that, fed struggled a ton on carpets, had serious issues dealing with big servers and quality serve and volleyers on hardcourts......just like everyone else, he too started winning when the courts were slowed down......i am not saying that you belong among clueless followers but genuine fans like you are turned to tards by others, luie......

just because fed actually was part of a fast era and won a few ATP matches and titles in fast era doesn't mean that he would rip these current players to shreds on fast surfaces......he would never have won 16 slams if he was an aggressive player like what these fedtards dream......

[Start da Game]

Originally Posted by Fuser59

Agreed...but your last wish is just highly unlikely...AND YOU KNOW THAT...but you hope...
Just like I hope Fed takes Nadulls head of in another clayless GS final...BUT I KNOW IT'S highly unlikely...

we will see.....it could actually happen at indian wells or miami, my wish that is.....

[Start da Game]

Originally Posted by juan27

in 2004 and 2005 the surfaces were very fasters in comparassion with now....

after 2007 , the courts were very slow: australia it`s much more slown after 2007 , wimbledon too , masters cup is very slow in comparassion with houston and shangai , us open slow too.

federer defensive player????? typical bullshits of nadull`s tard.

federer defeat guys like sampras , ivanisevic , krajicek and other great servers in very fast conditions

that's because of his defensive skills, not his offensive skills.....you need defense to counter aggression which is what fed has.....when it comes to countering defense, he's actually not as good as what fedtards dream of him.....

[juan27]

Originally Posted by Start da Game

that's because of his defensive skills, not his offensive skills.....you need defense to counter aggression which is what fed has.....when it comes to countering defense, he's actually not as good as what fedtards dream of him.....

when federer defeated sampras , he played the 98% of the match with serve and volley........... where were the defense???? wimbledon 2003 the same thing.


return serve is not a defensive skill , it`s one of the most importants factors in tennis game!!!

you are the firt man that say that federer is defensive

the reality is that nadal after 2007 with the fast courts more slow , he started to won outside clay.

it`s horrible the slow that made the fast courts after 2007 , australian open final this year it`s the evidence.

rallys of 1000 shots in fast courts.....

you speak about the firts years of federer when he was a boy , it`s logical that he were defeated by henman or agassis

[luie]

Originally Posted by Start da Game

and such returns are not possible on a consistent basis on 90s grass......henman had no issues putting away fed before 2004 in the fast era.....in fact fed lost all three times to henman on carpets, it's 3-0 to henman......

come 2002, 2003, baseliners like hewitt, grosjean started getting better of henman at wimbledon.....

philippoussis's first serve should never have been returned so easily so many times but even players like alexander popp dealt with it with ease on 2003 grass......philippoussis with his mad serving took sets of peak sampras on grass in the 90s.....it's a joke that he lost a wimbledon final in straight sets......

it's just a stupid belief of clueless followers that federer is a god on fast surfaces......truth remains that, fed struggled a ton on carpets, had serious issues dealing with big servers and quality serve and volleyers on hardcourts......just like everyone else, he too started winning when the courts were slowed down......i am not saying that you belong among clueless followers but genuine fans like you are turned to tards by others, luie......

just because fed actually was part of a fast era and won a few ATP matches and titles in fast era doesn't mean that he would rip these current players to shreds on fast surfaces......he would never have won 16 slams if he was an aggressive player like what these fedtards dream......

What I stated was fed has an exception record against big Servers.
SERVE & volleyers , SERVE & forehand or just SERVE.
Not Serve & volleyers. Like rafter & Herman their serve wasn't strong enough for his block bh to deflect the ball away. They rushed the net and robbed him of time. Their serve didn't have the necessary velocity.
However he was effective against ,Sampras & ivaneservic . He beat ivaneservic the same year he won Wimby on carpet. Sampras was still good enough to make the finals of the USO.
Rusedski,Phillouposis, Roddick, Dr ivo etc. the velocity of their serve when blocked didn't give them time to react to the return.
Fed had many weapons to utilize to win on grass his bh, volleys, serve movement are all attributes on grass that he could of been successful.
If Stich,Phillouposis ,mal Washington , cedrice pioline. Could win titles and make finals on 90s grass why not fed . He could at least go deep numerous times to give himself a chance.
It's hard to compare era but if a player as a kid excelled on fast low bouncing surfaces & today has the best indoor record of the current crop . Then I can give him A fighting chance .will he be as successfully as today no.
Because this era is a HC era. Weak surfaces are clay n grass based on technical aspect as well as elite competition

[Gabe32]

Originally Posted by Action Jackson

It's obvious you are having it both ways. Did Nadal and Djokovic play professional events under the old conditions, the answer is no. It is beyond comprehension can't compare eras and really trying to take what players are doing now when surfaces and technology was clearly different, that's having it both ways.

Federer played in both eras.

OK, at least now I understand what you mean by the whole "having it both ways" thing.

That being said, I still disagree.

First of all it is a hypothetical. So while a little silly, is not completely outrageous. Take away hypotheticals from MTF and you'd have like 30 threads.

But more importantly they DID all play on it. They all grew up on it. Unless the conspiracy theorists really want to claim that they ATP started changing the speed of the surfaces in the mid-late 90's because they saw the talent in players like a very young Djokovic and Nadal...

But the truth is that they were playing on the juniors circuit and they even played a few professional tournaments under those old conditions.

But even if they didn't ... it is a hypothetical! And a not too ridiculous/unimaginable one. I am not asking who would win: Laver or Federer. That is not doable for 100's of reasons.

The hypothetical I posed is much less fantastical and I think deserves an answer if everyone here really wants to complain about this gigantic conspiracy to aid Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. Because I think it is almost certain they would be dominating under any conditions.

Some examples to help my case:

-Federer winning Paris at age 30! (arguably the quickest and lowest bouncing courts on tour)

-Nadal winning the USO in 2010 (a fast, low bouncing surface that Nadal struggles to move on as well as other surfaces)

-Nadal winning Montreal in 2005 (same as above, plus he was very young)

-Federer winning a million WTF's (fast, low bouncing)

-Djokovic's dominance on clay this year while still winning Wimbledon and the USO (his movement was extremely impressive on all surfaces, beat Nadal (best or 2nd best claycourter ever) in 3 clay finals, beat Federer (the greatest or 2nd greatest grass court player ever) in the final at Wimbledon.

Granted the extremes have been watered down (clay and grass) but even if they became more extreme, like they were in the past, I think it is safe to assume the same players would be dominating. While the speed of the surface is obviously an important aspect, so too is movement. And Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have showed that they simply have amazing footwork on all three surfaces (granted they all have their respective specialities). Nobody could beat Roger in 2004-2005. The same goes for Rafa in 2010 and Novak in 2011.

[Gabe32]

Also, why is the thread called "Speed Up the Courts" if the general consensus is that clay courts have been sped up.

Do you guys not want the clay courts returned to how they were as well? They should be slowed down some, no (especially Madrid/RG)?

[Looner]

Watching today's match b/w DelPo and Fed and I have to say once again what a joy it is to watch tennis on a fast court. Dazzling stuff from both guys.

Originally Posted by Gabe32

Also, why is the thread called "Speed Up the Courts" if the general consensus is that clay courts have been sped up.

Do you guys not want the clay courts returned to how they were as well? They should be slowed down some, no (especially Madrid/RG)?

Seeing as you like talking about general consensuses, most courts have been slowed down and only clay sped up. Clay tourneys are about fewer in ratio of 2:1 to HCs so that is why.

[romismak]

I think mid 2000s surfaces were best, not 90s super fast, but not this mega slow... actually there can make it easy happen, just change balls or little bit make surface different. I think indoor HC should be faster-and we don´t need super fast carpet, just make indoor HC faster-Rotterdam last yer, Bercy that Soderling won, Montpellier this year are good-fast indoor HC events.

Than clay- just give more dirt on it, balls for clay-not light-quick Babolat balls for RG. And just wattering the clay-in order to make it slower.

Grass-it won´t be as quick as before, becase in 90s there weren´t so many baseliners that destroyed grass, but still with different balls and maybe changing that 100% rye-grass just do 90% it can be quicker. Why Queens is faster than Wimbledon? what is obvious... just make Wimbledon as fast as Queens-which is clearly not as fast as 10 years before-baseline game is normal there too, but some SV and quick rallies are also possible there.

About outdoor HC- major surface- easy slow let to be slow like AO, IW, Miami, but pls faster events like USO, Cinci,Tokyo let it fast. Tokyo was slower, USO was slower, at least Cinci is still fast. It could be so easy, just change little things and we can have here much higher variety, with little bit faster grass with quicker balls, bigger variety in outdoor HC from slowest to fastest events, Indoor HC just make quicker, don´t need carpet and clay just make ,,more clay,, with balls for clay and more dirt-water that it will stay clay - not red HC...

[Gabe32]

Originally Posted by Looner

Seeing as you like talking about general consensuses, most courts have been slowed down and only clay sped up. Clay tourneys are about fewer in ratio of 2:1 to HCs so that is why.

Ha not sure where the anger is coming from. Just seems like an inappropriate title.

Guess I missed the unspoken implication in the title though "Speed up the courts (except for 1/3rd of the courts, do the opposite to them)"

[leng jai]

Slowing down the courts wasn't necessary to kill net rushers but it has made it even more useless. String and racket technology already did that.

Ajde.