Federer with Djokovic's backhand

[Corbon]

Everything else being Federer. Invincible in his prime? Multiple Calendar Grand Slam winner? Discuss.

[Saarbrigga]

Depends on the surface changes.

I guess today he would win the calender Grand Slam.

But 15 years ago where the grand slam surfaces where so different? No!

I don t know why so many people believe his backhand was weak in his prime. 2003-2006 he had absolutely no problems to beat Agassi and the best baseline players in baseline duels.
His backhand was much mor solid then it is today, simply because he was able to move a little bit faster.

Since 2007 he slowly but surley started to move a litte bit slower, which forced him to many unforced errors on the backhand side.

Federer in his prime was arguably the most complete Tennis player the world has ever seen to this day.

Scale 1-10, just the backhand:

Djokovic:
Flat: 10
Topspin: 9
Slice: 3

Nadal:
Flat: 8
Topspin: 10
Slice 3

Murray:
Flat: 10
Topspin: 8
Slice: 6

Federer:
Flat: 9
Topspin: 8
Slice: 10


A slice counts as well, and except of Sampras and Steffi Graf they were not many players with a great slice.

[Corbon]

I don t know why so many people believe his backhand was weak in his prime. 2003-2006 he had absolutely no problems to beat Agassi and the best baseline players in baseline duels.

Agassi was an old fart then.

I think in order to develop a counter against Nadal's high top spin shots on his backhand side, Fed would've needed a shot like Agassi or Nole, who could/can take the ball on the rise and then penetrate the court with their precise shots. Federer's OHB has always been his Achilles heel, even though it is probably still tier 2 on the tour.

Murray has a great slice and he's playing with a DHB. Tsonga has a decent slice as well. Steffi sliced almost 100% when her opponent was at the baseline. Wouldn't win jack with that shot today.

[BrushedBigJJ]

Roger would be tough to beat with the djokivic backhand no doubt. Especially djokivics ability to go up the line hard and presice...good night. Fed will kill people down the line on both sides, and there would be no side to pick on.

But he has to be thanking his lucky stars that the Murray, nadal, and djokivic parents decided to "wait" to have their tennis kids. Because if the federer in his prime had to deal with these three at their best(which is now not the mid early 2000s when federer dominated) because there is no way he would have 17 grand slams. He would win his fair share, but even in his prime he couldn't take all three of these guys out every slam. Or I guess at least 2 of them each time.

[Saarbrigga]

Agassi was an old fart then.

Nalbandian? Safin? Hewitt?

[ICEMAN_9588]

Roger would be tough to beat with the djokivic backhand no doubt. Especially djokivics ability to go up the line hard and presice...good night. Fed will kill people down the line on both sides, and there would be no side to pick on.

But he has to be thanking his lucky stars that the Murray, nadal, and djokivic parents decided to "wait" to have their tennis kids. Because if the federer in his prime had to deal with these three at their best(which is now not the mid early 2000s when federer dominated) because there is no way he would have 17 grand slams. He would win his fair share, but even in his prime he couldn't take all three of these guys out every slam. Or I guess at least 2 of them each time.

Well, this is just an opinion. And I'm gonna tell you why your speech is wrong, to me.

First of all, Federer faced Nadal during his "golden age". You have to think that Nadal wont last until 30, his tennis and his knees won't let him play so long at these levels.
With that said, Rafa is a "prematurity" phenomenon, he started play pro when he was 15, and he started winning at 19. Today, it's something almost impossible, tennis is too physical to let a 19 years old guy win a Grand Slam, I think we won't see a kid like Boris Becker winning Wimbledon for a long long time (for example).

This is for what concerns Rafa.
Now you're saying that Roger had the luck to face Murray and Djokovic after he already won a lot of titles.
Well, I could easily say that Federer is facing these guys at their best, when he already was 28-29 years old.
I mean, in 2007 Nole was a cracking star, he lost US Open final but he was not really beaten. In 2008, he destroied Federer in Australia, but after that? Indian Wells, Rome...stop. In Wimbledon he lost to a great Safin, then in the AO rematch, at NY, he failed against Federer, who had just lost everything (Wimbledon final, number 1 position).
In 2009, he literally sucked in Grand Slams tournament, while the 28 years old guy was reaching all Major finals, winning Roland Garros and Wimbledon, breaking Sampras record. Where was Nole? Oh yes, he was losing from Kohlschreiber in 3rd round, straight set. Do I have to remember you the US Open semifinal?
In 2010, US Open, eventually Djokovic make his statement agst Roger, but Fed was just 29 and a half years old...

In 2011 the Djoker exploded in all is athleticism, 0 losses until June, I mean...FANTASTIC, almost PERFECT.
Almost. But there is that match, I can't remember exactly, was it Roland Garros semifinal? Help me out.
The best Djokovic ever lost against the 30 year old Federer? Am i wrong? Correct me if I am, please....
And the US Open semifinal, 5-3 40-15, he lost cause Djokovic is absolutely crazy, ok, I can take it (even if it was a shock for me to accept that loss), but another time...a 30 years old guy almost defeated Djokovic in his best time of his carreer (a level he still didn't reach again).

Then you have Murray, who keep losing important matches after winning first set.
I don't have to quote all H2H with Roger, I just need one of them, the last one. Murray was playing better, but he needed the 5th to win.
And people say "Oh he is a true Champion, cause he won the match anyway". Well, no. Let's be true, Murray won that match cause he is 25 and Roger is almost 32 years old.

Now my question is simple: if Federer were 25, he would have lost that match in the 5th? After recovering 1-2 handicap?
My point is simple: you cannot say "Federer had no opponents" cause you have not the certainty that they could have competed against him at his best.
Probably he wouldn't reach the net so much as he does now, but you have an idea of how he was dominant from the baseline, when he was 25?
I mean, we're talking about 2006 season, 92-5 score, 16 finals out 17 tournaments played, and all these achievements can be justified by "lack of opponents"?

I don't think so.
But one thing is certain: with the arrival of all these "wild" young guys (Djoker, Murray, Delpò, Tsonga), and with his contemporary ageing, Federer needed to be more tactical during his match, and needed to use solutions he wasn't using so much before.
That meant a nicest type of playing from him, and more spectacular matches.
Furthermore, if you say that the victories that Roger got from 2007 on had a bigger valour, or quality, than the previous ones, I can agree.

PS Sorry for my English, I mus have missed some verb

[Corbon]

Agassi was an old fart then.

Nalbandian? Safin? Hewitt?

Those were still young in 2003-2006.

[BrushedBigJJ]

Now you're saying that Roger had the luck to face Murray and Djokovic after he already won a lot of titles. Well, I could easily say that Federer is facing these guys at their best, when he already was 28-29 years old.

Thats about the right time. Nadal played his best overall tennis from early 2010 to the french 2012, not that he was a dud before he just played better during this time. So this was in his time frame. But this is not in the Djokovic or Murray prime years. The real Djokovic didnt show up til early 2011. And real Murray didn't show up til mid Wimbeldon/London Olympics 2012.

I mean, in 2007 Nole was a cracking star, he lost US Open final but he was not really beaten. In 2008, he destroied Federer in Australia, but after that? Indian Wells, Rome...stop. In Wimbledon he lost to a great Safin, then in the AO rematch, at NY, he failed against Federer, who had just lost everything (Wimbledon final, number 1 position).

In 2007 Djokovic didn't even have slam to his name, and the 2011 and beyond Djokovic would destroy his 2007 counterpart. He was a very good tennis player, but not a cracking star in my opinion, especially compared to now. Same for 2008, even though he did win a slam.

In 2009, he literally sucked in Grand Slams tournament, while the 28 years old guy was reaching all Major finals, winning Roland Garros and Wimbledon, breaking Sampras record. Where was Nole? Oh yes, he was losing from Kohlschreiber in 3rd round, straight set. Do I have to remember you the US Open semifinal?
In 2010, US Open, eventually Djokovic make his statement agst Roger, but Fed was just 29 and a half years old....

Murray/Djokovic not yet in their 2011/2012 level during any of the time you are speaking of here.

And if memory serves me right the guy that beat Federer in the French and Wimbeldon the year before was injured at the french 2009(I guess thats up for debate) and did not even enter Wimbeldon 2009.

And the 2010 Djokovic was double faulting more than he was acing people. I think that even held true in his match vs Federer in the U.S. Open 2010. And somehow Djokovic still won. The 2011 beyond Djokovic no longer does this and has improved in other ways as well

In 2011 the Djoker exploded in all is athleticism, 0 losses until June, I mean...FANTASTIC, almost PERFECT. Almost. But there is that match, I can't remember exactly, was it Roland Garros semifinal? Help me out. The best Djokovic ever lost against the 30 year old Federer? Am i wrong? Correct me if I am, please........

Yep that was the match that ended the streak, but I believe Fed was 29, not 30. Federer deserved that win, he just played better. And if memory serves me right one of the other big 4 beat Fed in the final.

And after that lost what did Djokovic do. He went 27-1 in the next four slams with Nadal, Murray, and Federer in all of them. Of course the one loss is the French Final against Nadal. I think Fed did the 27-1 at the slams a couple of years, with the same exact fate at the French Open Final.

And people say "Oh he is a true Champion, cause he won the match anyway". Well, no. Let's be true, Murray won that match cause he is 25 and Roger is almost 32 years old.

The age difference certainly helped Murray. But Murray won the match because he moved better than Roger, consistantly hit more aggressive than Roger, and most confusing of all served better than Roger. I think like 20 aces to Rogers single digits.

Now my question is simple: if Federer were 25, he would have lost that match in the 5th? After recovering 1-2 handicap?

It wouldn't have been 6-2 thats for sure, but if the 25 year old federer is being out hit, and out aced I dont think the 25 year old one would make much of a difference in the final outcome of the winner.

I mean, we're talking about 2006 season, 92-5 score, 16 finals out 17 tournaments played, and all these achievements can be justified by "lack of opponents"?

I don't think so.

Only Nadal at the French could keep up with Roger during this time. But he had a "lack of opponents" if you compare now to then. Nadal/Murray/Djokvic would scortch thos grand slam fields at their best too.

Furthermore, if you say that the victories that Roger got from 2007 on had a bigger valour, or quality, than the previous ones, I can agree.

I agree
Roger's 2012 Wimbeldon win was the most impressive win in his career in my humble opinion. Beating both Djokivic and Murray at thier best.

[supinesmokey13]

i really dnt buy the argument that fed's bh isnt good enough to beat rafa when he thrashed rafa in london in 2011 the bh was fine .its as someone said earlier fed isnt always able to get in postion quick enough because of age also on high boucing court it can be difficult fed to time the bh when it gets up high. but when he does get it right rafa cant really break it down because it is a technically sound shot indian wells was a prime example fed timed the bh up high well and was able to be agressive with the shot and rafa couldnt break it down so roger dominated the match.

the technique, strength, and footwork preparation needed to hit a good one handed bh is why coaches dont teach it the footwork required to hit the two hander isnt as complex.

fed's footwork ,timing , and to sum the degree the bounce of the court dictate how well fed hits the bh

[ICEMAN_9588]

Thats about the right time. Nadal played his best overall tennis from early 2010 to the french 2012, not that he was a dud before he just played better during this time. So this was in his time frame. But this is not in the Djokovic or Murray prime years. The real Djokovic didnt show up til early 2011. And real Murray didn't show up til mid Wimbeldon/London Olympics 2012.

First of all, I think Nadal played his best in 2008. I mean, he was a monster. Yes, in 2010 he had more shots, he was more complete, with a better service and a better slice backhand, but he didn't reach the level of 2008.

Yes, Nole and Andy weren't at their best, but I don't understand what are you trying to say. Who tells you that if Djokovic and Murray would have been at their best, Nadal and Federer wouldn't have won so many titles?
You're basing all your reasoning on hypothetical thoughts.

In 2007 Djokovic didn't even have slam to his name, and the 2011 and beyond Djokovic would destroy his 2007 counterpart. He was a very good tennis player, but not a cracking star in my opinion, especially compared to now. Same for 2008, even though he did win a slam.

In 2007 Djokovic won Miami and Toronto, defeating Nadal (in QF) and Roddick-Nadal-Federer (QF-SF-F), first 3 players in the world ranking, something that no one have never done before.
Then he became number 3 and reach US Open final. Yes, he still had no Slam to his name, but he already was one of the strongest players in the circuit.
Of couse he wasn't at the same level of now. But the same thing (in a negative way) counts for Federer too, he is not at the same level of 2007, not at all.

Murray/Djokovic not yet in their 2011/2012 level during any of the time you are speaking of here.

And if memory serves me right the guy that beat Federer in the French and Wimbeldon the year before was injured at the french 2009(I guess thats up for debate) and did not even enter Wimbeldon 2009.

And the 2010 Djokovic was double faulting more than he was acing people. I think that even held true in his match vs Federer in the U.S. Open 2010. And somehow Djokovic still won. The 2011 beyond Djokovic no longer does this and has improved in other ways as well

Ok but again, what these things mean?
Djokovic and Murray scores before 2011-2012 don't count? So I can say that Federer's scores after 2007 don't count either!

And yes, Federe won his only Roland Garros with Nadal out of the final. Probably he would never won the French without this little "help", no problem to say that.
But I could say that modern grass and hard courts are way too slower than before.
Put Nadal and Djokovic in a 2000 grass court and let's see what happens. I don't know, and you don't know too.

Again, all hypothetical speeches.

Yep that was the match that ended the streak, but I believe Fed was 29, not 30. Federer deserved that win, he just played better. And if memory serves me right one of the other big 4 beat Fed in the final.

And after that lost what did Djokovic do. He went 27-1 in the next four slams with Nadal, Murray, and Federer in all of them. Of course the one loss is the French Final against Nadal. I think Fed did the 27-1 at the slams a couple of years, with the same exact fate at the French Open Final.

Yep, he was 29 and a half, that changes everything FOR SURE XD
The memory serves you right, the problem is that you think in a "mathematical" way, just like "If Djokovic beats Federer and Federer beats Nadal, so Djokovic MUST defeat Nadal". Then happens that Djokovic destroies Nadal in 7 consecutive finals. So what's my point? Simple, every match is different from each other, every match has his own "history".

Anyway, I never denied Nole achievements after (and before)that loss, amazing effort. Just like Federer, but if we want to be meticolous, Roger did it twice (2006-2007), and he finished the year winning the Masters Cup.
Nole, after his fantastic win in US Open, literally had no energies left for the rest of the season.

Even Nadal, after his monstrous time between 2008-2009 suffered a serious injury that forced him to forfait Wimbledon...

It wouldn't have been 6-2 thats for sure, but if the 25 year old federer is being out hit, and out aced I dont think the 25 year old one would make much of a difference in the final outcome of the winner.

If, if, if...
And here we go again....

Only Nadal at the French could keep up with Roger during this time. But he had a "lack of opponents" if you compare now to then. Nadal/Murray/Djokvic would scortch thos grand slam fields at their best too.

Of course, If I make a comparison, you're absolutely right.
So why Safin won only 2 Slams?
Why Nalbandian never get one single Major title?
I'm talking about players as talented as Roger. So where's the difference?
I'm tryin to say that keep winning is harder than we can imagine. Federer kept his motivation alive during all his carreer, and that's something that has nothing to do with the valor of your opponents.


But I'm also trying to think basing myself on fact as much as I can.
I cannot say the same things as you, cause Djokovic and Murray never, and I mean never, faced the best Federer of all times.
But Federer faced Djokovic at his best, and fought well, for instance.
I also think that Nole is a great Champion and deserves the achievements he reached.

Finally, I also think you're overrating Murray. I don't consider him a true Champion yet.
Too much times he let his opponents to come back in the match when he could and would have given them the final straw.
Like against Federer in SF on friday (and yes, Murray won cause he moved better, but he moves better cause he is younger, and he didn't have to fight 5 sets against Tsonga in QF).
Like against Djokovic last year, 2 sets to 1 lead, and he lost the 4th 6-1.
Like against Nadal in Wimbledon SF, 2011: won the 1st 75, then he lost 62 62 64.
Like against Roger in Wimbledon final, last year, after winning first set 64.
Like against Djokovic last sunday in the final. Won the first 7-6, 1-0 and 0-40 in the 2nd, you MUST get that break, no excuses.

He's really really improved, but from a psychological pov, he's still not at the same level of the other 3 guys, and I quote Ferrer also, into this list.

[Saarbrigga]

Let s put it this way:

The greatest skill in Tennis was to deal with different conditions (especially on GS events):

AUS OPEN:
medium fast, medium bouncing
ROLAND GARROS:
slow, high bouncing
WIMBLEDON:
very fast, flat bouncing
US OPEN:
very fast, medium bouncing


Sampras was the opposide of Nadal. He was the greatest fast court player ever and most effective S&V player.
In his days the conditions were like postet above.
Sampras won the fastest court (Wimbledon) 7 times, the second fastest (US Open) 5 times, the third fastest (AUS Open) just 2 times, and the slowest (RG) not once.

Scale 0-10 how effective his game was:

AUS OPEN: 8
RG: 5
WI: 10
US OPEN: 10


Today the conditions are this way:

AUS OPEN:
medium fast, high bouncing
ROLAND GARROS:
slow, high bouncing
WIMBLEDON:
fast, high bouncing
US OPEN:
fast, medium bouncing

No court is "very fast" or "flat bouncing" anymore, just "fast" or "medium bouncing".

This favours all kind of baseline players. Today Thomas Muster, Guga Kuerten and Yevgeni Kafelnikov would reach at least the semi of any GS tournament, even in Wimbledon.
While all Ivanisevic s, Rafter s, Edberg s, Becker s etc wouldn t reach the final in Wimbledon anymore.

Vica verca Murray, Nadal and Djokovic would have a VERY hard time to reach the final of Wimbledon and US Open, only dominating AUS Open and Roland Garrios.



Compare these two matches:

1) DJOKOVIC - NADAL, AUS OPEN 2012.
CONDITIONS: medium fast, high bouncing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGrmJz81heQ

2) FEDERER - NALBANDIAN, AUS OPEN 2004
CONDITIONS: medium fast, medium bouncing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZ9ueAKKMCU


Just trust your ears and eyes and see the difference. Fed and Nalby punish the ball and the court is not damn fast but not very high bouncing. Rarely an exchange surpasses 10 changes.

Rafa and Nole punish the ball as well...but the high boucing makes almost any ralley bewtten 10-40 exchanges.

[DennieFR1908]

Fed with Wawrinka backhand would be done

[prince shah]

Theres one reason and only one reason why Federer has been losing to those guys, the backhand slice. When Federer was on top, his slice percentage was in the high 70's. That was his regular setup for the run around forehand. When he started to change it to a consistent flat shot, he was punished for it. Unlike top spin games, in real life players have to bend down to return those slices. Returning Federer's slice at his best was a stamina fading job, thats one of the reasons why Federer looked more fresh than his opponents. If Federer remembers his old style, he should be able to reach the top again.

[ICEMAN_9588]

You can't use slice backhand all the time, sooner or later your opponents will learn and will be able to handle that.
Furthermore, we have to say that is short slice makes absolutely no effects against Nadal left forehand, and Rafa was the only great and constant rival during the years.
Until 2007, at least.

You don't have to think "how would it been if Roger would had continued to use slice bh?" cause you already have the answer: just think about Fernando Gonzalez.
Of course he is a different player from Roger, but his bh was completely non existent until, let's say, 2007-2008. He could compete cause of his great serve and, mostly, his monstrous forehand, but he's been "stopped" by his backhand (and his mood) during his carreer.

A great Italian journalist used to say that Roger's opponents "created" his top spin backhand, cause they constantly attacked him on his left side, so that "forced" Federer to "learn" how to have a stronger shot.

[prince shah]

The slice backhand is his main setup for the run around forehand. If Federer used the slice less like he is now, during the times he was on top he wouldn't even have 10 slams right now. Federer's backhand is pure setup for the end point.