Simon: With different surfaces, Federer would only have won half his titles

It's often said that surfaces becoming more similar has hindered Federer, but Gilles Simon has a different view:

http://www.tennisearth.com/news/tennisNews/Roger-Federer-would-have-won-only-half-of-his-titles-Gilles-Simon-474761.htm

Simon isn't singling out Federer though, he is speaking of all the top players.

(Note: I've read elsewhere that the "one player" who wanted similar surfaces, should actually have read "one person", so it could perhaps be former ATP president)

I do think active players should be more aware of the manner in which their comments will be quoted by the media. This might well have been just a small part of a wide-ranging interview but it's hardly surprising to see the particular sentence that was used as the headline ......!

It is perhaps something of an irony that players with the status of Nadal or Djokovic would never make public judgements on Federer's stellar achievements (other than by way of pure compliment) and yet someone like Gilles Simon is happy to do so.

I have absolutely nothing against Simon, he always strikes me as a nice enough bloke ; but once he starts talking about Federer in terms that could in ANY way be portrayed as negative/critical - even if, in fairness, that is not, seemingly, his true motive - he really is on a hiding to nothing. With amateur pundits it doesn't really matter what they say, because nobody gives them much coverage or credibility anyway. But tour pros should be very cautious with their words if they are not to come across as resentful - or even ridiculous.

The interviewer was possibly coaxing Simon, but perhaps he could have followed up his comments with something along the lines of ......."but then again, the guy is so talented, who knows how many he would have won, regardless of surface variation....."

All that said, Simon is supremely qualified to comment on multi-Slam winners. He does, after all, have one QF to his name in nine years of Slam competition.

I kind of like Simon for saying what he really thinks. He spoke out about women's prize money as well, I believe?

I understand why the likes of Djokovic and Nadal are so cautious with the media but it would be really tedious if everyone was as diplomatic as them.

The tour is richer for the likes of Simon, Gulbis, Janowicz etc.

Fair comment...it's why no-one since Borg up to Nadal won RG then Wimb, they were nigh on impossible to win together pre-early 2000s. ATP wanted longer ralleys and Fedal finals. They got what they wanted but homogenised the game in the process. Federer himself has said he doesn't have to change his game one surface to the next making it easier for small group of players to dominate the tour.

Just SO wrong from Simon...faster grass and hard court and Roger would probably have scooped up more titles...witness the young Roger's serve and volley BP defence against Pete in 2001....even slower clay wouldn't have made much difference, it's not like Roger's been dominating on clay anyway.

Probably all the top 4 would have still won a lot of slams compared to the others because frankly they are superior to players like Simon in every important aspect. They'd have won fewer but still be in GOAT discussions and still be multi-surface slammers. That's because the most important aspects of play are mental (be that fortitude, tactical intelligence or willingness to train hard) and applicable to all surfaces, they would still have their unique and extreme physical gifts and are all technically excellent players

I think Simon is wrong - I think players develop their games continually throughout the time they play the game, and as such they adjust their games based on the conditions in which they play - this is only natural. If the courts had more variation, I think Federer would have adjusted, just like everyone else would. The best players would adjust the best.

I think he's being honest, but I think he's wrong.

Failures talk a lot by words and Success talks by itself in Action.

Its pretty clear whether Simon is a failure or success.

How about this Simon, you only made it to the top 10 or 20 whatever with your limited game cause of weak era?

well as usual when someone critices TMF he gets shot down in flames for it

Simon has had a pretty decent career TBH and has got every ounce out of his ability.

Anyway, onto the point, I suspect he was indulging in more than a spot of hyperbole when he said "only half the titles", but I actually think he makes a valid point. Federer's wimbledon reign began once the surface had already been slowed, and it's not all that hard to imagine say Roddick nipping in with a title or two there at 90's pace. Of course on the other hand Federer may well have won more titles post-08.

It's all speculation in the end, and I'm happy Simon's actually given a proper answer rather than the usual non-committal PR spouting. Of course, given the reaction he probably shouldn't have.

PS: where's socal when you need him? A player criticising "St Roger" and displaying a bit of needle, would have been right up his street

PPS: his comment about the uniformisation of surfaces being done essentially to suit "one player" is IMO more interesting, so maybe we should be debating that...

Mad for Chelsea wrote:well as usual when someone critices TMF he gets shot down in flames for it

Simon has had a pretty decent career TBH and has got every ounce out of his ability.

Anyway, onto the point, I suspect he was indulging in more than a spot of hyperbole when he said "only half the titles", but I actually think he makes a valid point. Federer's wimbledon reign began once the surface had already been slowed, and it's not all that hard to imagine say Roddick nipping in with a title or two there at 90's pace. Of course on the other hand Federer may well have won more titles post-08.

It's all speculation in the end, and I'm happy Simon's actually given a proper answer rather than the usual non-committal PR spouting. Of course, given the reaction he probably shouldn't have.

PS: where's socal when you need him? A player criticising "St Roger" and displaying a bit of needle, would have been right up his street

PPS: his comment about the uniformisation of surfaces being done essentially to suit "one player" is IMO more interesting, so maybe we should be debating that...

If all surface including FO and Wimbledon was homogenized why on earth Federer kept losing to Nadal on FO [compared to say Wimbledon] alone until 2008?

In 2008 FO Nadal humiliated Federer and in contrast could have easily lost the Wim 2008 from 2 sets up, if Djokovic, Becker , Sampras or Laver talk about it then its fine cause these players have achieved the things to discuss about it, what did Simon win in GS level to discuss about it? He just don't deserve to discuss anything about Fed or anybody winning slams coz of some handicap reasons.

Simon is getting shot down for his stupidity and not for discussing Fed.

I reckon he's right that Federer would have won fewer Wimbledons - Roddick would have got perhaps two off him (though re watch the Sampras / Fed match and the 19 year old plays our serve & volley) - but he'd probably have done a little better in Australia. US wouldn't have changed I think, certainly not for the worse. So overall I don't see a lot of difference, maybe a small drop.

I think it's fine to say what you think, better than all that bland nothing some people come out with. Doesn't mean what they say is right though and this one doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.

I wonder who he refers to at the end? Surely it's Rafa, given occasional pronouncements on the subject?

Simon is in the hospital, potentially on medication. He is the one who said something derogatory about women and prize money, IIRC. Stick a microphone under someone's noggin' and see what falls out.

He was happy to lose to Nadal @USO to be with his family and newborn.

I should also pay attention to McEnroe, Agassi and many ex-players' pronouncements.

He is entitled to his opinion. I wish Santoro had at least one slam.