Fed's last shot [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Fed's last shot

FedvsNole
06-15-2012, 01:31 AM
Feds essentially 31 already and is this wimbledon his final shot to realistically ever claim another major win?

Lets not forget the us open is keeping super saturday for at least this year so that definetely loweers any chance there at his age plus they have only slowed the court down. Wimbledon 2013 fed will be nearly 32.


What do you guys think.

Topspindoctor
06-15-2012, 01:37 AM
I think Fed should concentrate on his "not winning a slam since 2010" streak and just vulture events like Rotterdam, Basel and Dubai. Slams are overrated these days.

viruzzz
06-15-2012, 01:38 AM
I know he's not getting any younger, but I still consider him as a very difficult threat in all surfaces.
If he finds his form, he could play amazingly well and beat everyone.

So... Yeah, it's true that this would be an amazing chance for him. But I should never count him out, some years ago, I thought he wont win any more big tournaments, and he is still ruling the WTF and winning masters series.

So, never count him out, let's see what 2013 and 2014 brings. I believe in Roger, call me an ilussional fanboy, I don't mind. If I don't trust my fav players, I can't enjoy the sport.

Caesar1844
06-15-2012, 01:38 AM
I'm not convinced that the USO isn't Federer's best chance at another Grand Slam these days.

Certainly this is one of his best remaining chances. I think realistically, he will cease to be a genuine contender after the 2013 season (if he even continues to play past then). If he somehow managed to win the Championships or the USO then he'd probably retire this year.

stewietennis
06-15-2012, 01:38 AM
Not really. There are only two guys that Federer has serious problems with. If lightning strikes twice in a major which hinders Nadal and Djokovic even slightly, then Federer can easily clean up. That or if JesusFed shows up. Sampras was older when he won his last major and Connors had a dream run at 40; and those two weren't even the Top 3 at the time when they made their last stand. Federer still has at least one good year left to contend seriously for the majors.

tumbak
06-15-2012, 01:39 AM
He'll win a slam.

BroTree123
06-15-2012, 01:44 AM
He'll probably snatch one more unfortunately.

Topspindoctor
06-15-2012, 01:45 AM
He'll probably snatch one more unfortunately.

Which one? Basel or Luxembourg?

Looner
06-15-2012, 01:46 AM
I reckon it is. USO scheduling is just too tiring for Fed. He needs a few gears to click here for him - a healthy Tsonga to beat RN, Berdych to beat ND and it's in the bag:devil:.

BroTree123
06-15-2012, 01:47 AM
Which one? Basel or Luxembourg?

Neither. Estoril. He requires one more clay slam.

Jimnik
06-15-2012, 01:50 AM
If his Royal GOATness really wants to consolidate his position he should break the record for oldest slam champion. Laver, Ashe, Connors and Sampras did 31, Agassi 32, Rosewall 35.

Fireballer
06-15-2012, 02:01 AM
I reckon it is. USO scheduling is just too tiring for Fed. He needs a few gears to click here for him - a healthy Tsonga to beat RN, Berdych to beat ND and it's in the bag:devil:.

on hard?LOL...it's like 8-0 H2H on hard.Djoker owns him

Looner
06-15-2012, 02:03 AM
We're talking about Wimbledon here...

FedvsNole
06-15-2012, 02:04 AM
I reckon it is. USO scheduling is just too tiring for Fed. He needs a few gears to click here for him - a healthy Tsonga to beat RN, Berdych to beat ND and it's in the bag:devil:.


For me, i would love for him to beat both nole and nadal at wimbledon and put an exclamation point on his win. A win like this would probably propel him to win another major if he really sticks around 2-3 years bc he won't always have nole and nadal at the semis/finals.


I want nole first and lets correct history with a win over nadal for number 17. If he were to do this, it would go down as maybe his greatest slam victory ever being that he has 16 already and it playing peak nole and arguably healhty nadal and beating them after being well well past his peak himself and reclaiming number 1 in the process.


What a way to end your career with an absolute bomb victory and numer 1 ranking.. gives me goosebumps just thinking about it.

FedvsNole
06-15-2012, 02:05 AM
on hard?LOL...it's like 8-0 H2H on hard.Djoker owns him



a healthy del potro on a faster hard court this year will take out nole in 4. Book it.

Looner
06-15-2012, 02:05 AM
Nah, I want to reserve the Nole and RN wins for the USO where he'll make sure he'll finish the year as #1 and MTF will explode - I'll make sure of it. I can dream, so I don't care about your common sense :angel:.

Mark Lenders
06-15-2012, 02:09 AM
a healthy del potro on a faster hard court this year will take out nole in 4. Book it.

US Open? I guess it's not impossible as long as Federer and Del Potro stop getting drawn together for once.

Would like to see that match to be honest, sort of a prelude of what's to come. There's a very good chance Djokovic and Del Potro will be #1 and 2 in 2/3 years, assuming Juan's injuries don't torment him any more.

Federer shouldn't stay at the highest level much longer, and neither should Nadal, considering age and mileage on their bodies. Would be nothing short of remarkable if Fedal were still in the mix in 2/3 years at 32/33 and 28-29 respectively.

Topspindoctor
06-15-2012, 02:13 AM
US Open? I guess it's not impossible as long as Federer and Del Potro stop getting drawn together for once.

Would like to see that match to be honest. There's a very good chance Djokovic and Del Potro will be #1 and 2 in 2/3 years, assuming Juan's injuries don't torment him any more.

Federer shouldn't stay at the highest level much longer, and neither should Nadal, considering age and mileage on their bodies. Would be nothing short of remarkable if Fedal were still in the mix in, 2/3 years.

Haters were saying that since Nadal was 22 :lol:

It's sad that the only chance a mediocre player like Del Potro has to win more slams if Nadal and Federer start declining severely. So much for his huge talent. :lol:

Mark Lenders
06-15-2012, 02:16 AM
Haters were saying that since Nadal was 22 :lol:

It's sad that the only chance a mediocre player like Del Potro has to win more slams if Nadal and Federer start declining severely. So much for his huge talent. :lol:

I never said that when he was 22. But even if he is one of the most extraordinary athletes in sport's history, still being a top player in 2/3 years at 28/29 with his style would be nothing short of remarkable. I won't rule out the possibility, but got to admit it's hardly probable.

And yes, Del Potro would have it easier to win Slams if two of the best players of all-time weren't in his way, and so would other players. Is this supposed to be a big revelation or anything?

FedvsNole
06-15-2012, 02:19 AM
Lets not forget if your fed or nadal, every year you stay on tour your making like 30-50 million from your endorsements alone. That alone would mkae you keep staying in the sport till you either really couldnt physically keep doing it.


Besides as an athlete that high of winning in a packed stadium is a type of "drug" you cannot expeirence again. Thats what causes so many to come out of retirement

Topspindoctor
06-15-2012, 02:21 AM
Nadal's movement this year has been the best since 2008... he made last 2GS finals and people still have the guts to say he's declining? :lol:

He's a fucking machine, the best athlete of all time probably. He is still hungry and he wants more big titles. Confidence wise, he's at his near best. Underestimate Nadal at your own peril.


Lets not forget if your fed or nadal, every year you stay on tour your making like 30-50 million from your endorsements alone. That alone would mkae you keep staying in the sport till you either really couldnt physically keep doing it.


None of the big 3 are playing for the money, they are playing for the history. Do you think Nadal cares if he has a few million more in the bank? :lol: He has enough money to keep himself warm during winter by burning cash instead of firewood.

Mark Lenders
06-15-2012, 02:22 AM
Lets not forget if your fed or nadal, every year you stay on tour your making like 30-50 million from your endorsements alone. That alone would mkae you keep staying in the sport till you either really couldnt physically keep doing it.


Besides as an athlete that high of winning in a packed stadium is a type of "drug" you cannot expeirence again. Thats what causes so many to come out of retirement

True. Both guys are so good that they could remain very good even after steep decline. I reckon Federer could easily be top 10 until he's 40+ if he wanted it. I mean, 3000 points are enough to be top 10, even at 40 Federer should be able to do that with his ability.

But their days at the very highest level won't last much longer though, I think. At some point, age and mileage will catch up with both.

BauerAlmeida
06-15-2012, 02:23 AM
Haters were saying that since Nadal was 22 :lol:

It's sad that the only chance a mediocre player like Del Potro has to win more slams if Nadal and Federer start declining severely. So much for his huge talent. :lol:


Yeah. Not like he already did that. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

BauerAlmeida
06-15-2012, 02:24 AM
Fed is only losing to Nadal and Djokovic at the slams. He may have a shot if one of them loses before (highly unlikely, but it may happen) and he plays in JesusMode against the other one (again, unlikely, but it may happen).

fivebargate
06-15-2012, 02:28 AM
I don't think Fed is gonna retire anytime soon. I think this will probably be he last year of such a packed schedule as he is having a bash at the no.1 record. Whether he gets it or not, he will probably throttle back a bit form here and use his advanced-age privellage of dropping tournaments.....and concentrating his energy on big runs at the majors.

Just hope he has got is schedule right this year....If the US Open and Wimbledon were earlier in the year, I would be liking his chances to have nailed at least one of them. Needs to get back that early season hugner and freshness in time for Wimby/Olympics.

Looner
06-15-2012, 02:31 AM
TSD being as clueless as always. Fed has signed endorsements until at least 2014 which is a main reason why people think he'll play on. Plus he's bought a few mansions worth a few million each, so he'll have to pay for those and he won't be making the same money after he retires. His children would need to grow up like bosses (like himself) plus he said he wants more. Haas is playing at 34 for his daughter so it makes complete sense for Fed to play on for money as well as fame/achievements.

As for Nadal, I hope he gets a bad condom so father can hit him as some point because he's looking ominous at least until 30:scared:.

FedvsNole
06-15-2012, 02:31 AM
Nadal's movement this year has been the best since 2008... he made last 2GS finals and people still have the guts to say he's declining? :lol:

He's a fucking machine, the best athlete of all time probably. He is still hungry and he wants more big titles. Confidence wise, he's at his near best. Underestimate Nadal at your own peril.





None of the big 3 are playing for the money, they are playing for the history. Do you think Nadal cares if he has a few million more in the bank? :lol: He has enough money to keep himself warm during winter by burning cash instead of firewood.

nadal best athlete maybe. I still believe he has had "help" which if you look at his injury list, body muscularity, and other things i wish not to discuss it takes away from that. Djokovic at this point is equal or greater in endurance. Federer has the best longevity, had the most explosive first step, and endurance only second to nadal although i never saw fed tire against nadal when he was in his prime.

Dont think so. Once you start making millions its like the equivalent of 1 dollar to your lifestyle. Everyone wants to maintain their lifestyle otherwise you'd see more super rich athletes donating money since it was just too much. bank accounts and greed have no limits.

ahadabans
06-15-2012, 02:32 AM
Would like to see that match to be honest, sort of a prelude of what's to come. There's a very good chance Djokovic and Del Potro will be #1 and 2 in 2/3 years, assuming Juan's injuries don't torment him any more.

Federer shouldn't stay at the highest level much longer, and neither should Nadal, considering age and mileage on their bodies. Would be nothing short of remarkable if Fedal were still in the mix in 2/3 years at 32/33 and 28-29 respectively.

This is a classic post. Nadal just turned 26 and Djokovic just turned 25. But somehow it would be REMARKABLE if Nadal was still at the top of the game in 2/3 years. AND YET it's practically a given that Djokovic will be number 1/2?

Good grief you guys really need to be less obvious about how blatantly biased you are.

I'm not disagreeing that in 2/3 years Nadal isn't going to be on a decline, but to think Djokovic won't be too is silly. Federer has only won a single slam since turning 27, and he's the greatest player in history. You telling me Djokovic is going to be ripping 2-3 slams a year when he's 28? Come on already.

Caesar1844
06-15-2012, 02:36 AM
Out of interest, barring career-ending injury when's the last time a player retired when he was still in the top 10? Borg?

I remember Agassi was ranked 20-something when he announced he would retire. He's probably the most competitive one in recent memory. Sampras was ranked in the teens after the 2002 USO, I think.

FedvsNole
06-15-2012, 02:36 AM
This is a classic post. Nadal just turned 26 and Djokovic just turned 25. But somehow it would be REMARKABLE if Nadal was still at the top of the game in 2/3 years. AND YET it's practically a given that Djokovic will be number 1/2?

Good grief you guys really need to be less obvious about how blatantly biased you are.

I'm not disagreeing that in 2/3 years Nadal isn't going to be on a decline, but to think Djokovic won't be too is silly. Federer has only won a single slam since turning 27, and he's the greatest player in history. You telling me Djokovic is going to be ripping 2-3 slams a year when he's 28? Come on already.

djoker wile be hit hard with age. Reflexes and movement are the first to go. Once his returning suffers and his defense declines he'll be beaten by many more players consistently. Expect to see this in 2014 when he's 27ish

Clay Death
06-15-2012, 02:39 AM
Nadal's movement this year has been the best since 2008... he made last 2GS finals and people still have the guts to say he's declining? :lol:

He's a fucking machine, the best athlete of all time probably. He is still hungry and he wants more big titles. Confidence wise, he's at his near best. Underestimate Nadal at your own peril.




None of the big 3 are playing for the money, they are playing for the history. Do you think Nadal cares if he has a few million more in the bank? :lol: He has enough money to keep himself warm during winter by burning cash instead of firewood.



clay warrior and his family is worth well over $200 million.

also last RG title was worth over $100 million over time because of the endorsement portfolio it is going to generate. that is the single greatest record in all of sports that cannot be broken.

and he has one hell of an endorsement portfolio already.



like general topspsin doc says, you aint seen nothing yet.


he is just getting started.

BauerAlmeida
06-15-2012, 02:40 AM
Djokovic's groundstrokes are superior to the 99% of the tour. Physical decline will not be a big problem for him.

Mark Lenders
06-15-2012, 02:41 AM
This is a classic post. Nadal just turned 26 and Djokovic just turned 25. But somehow it would be REMARKABLE if Nadal was still at the top of the game in 2/3 years. AND YET it's practically a given that Djokovic will be number 1/2?

Good grief you guys really need to be less obvious about how blatantly biased you are.

I'm not disagreeing that in 2/3 years Nadal isn't going to be on a decline, but to think Djokovic won't be too is silly. Federer has only won a single slam since turning 27, and he's the greatest player in history. You telling me Djokovic is going to be ripping 2-3 slams a year when he's 28? Come on already.

Nadal has far more mileage in his body than Djokovic. Mileage is more important than age and Djokovic came into the scene later than Nadal and has a less taxing style.

I'd be very surprised if Nadal didn't decline earlier than him.

Caesar1844
06-15-2012, 02:42 AM
djoker wile be hit hard with age. Reflexes and movement are the first to go. Once his returning suffers and his defense declines he'll be beaten by many more players consistently. Expect to see this in 2014 when he's 27ish
I would have thought that his returning would be one of the last things to suffer. Agassi's strength on the return was the biggest factor that allowed him to remain competitive in his later years, when his mobility and speed across the court was down.

Djokovic is strong on the serve and strong on the return, which I think are strokes that will serve him well for many years. The main concern re longevity is his athletically-reliant defensive ground game.

I think he will need to change his tactics a fair bit to avoid injury and remain competitive in as he gets older, but technique-wise he has the tools to do so if he goes down that road.

Topspindoctor
06-15-2012, 02:42 AM
Nadal has far more mileage in his body than Djokovic. Mileage is more important than age and Djokovic came into the scene later than Nadal and has a less taxing style.

I'd be very surprised if Nadal didn't decline earlier than him.

Nadal is a much better athlete, though. Much stronger physically. He can sustain his style until 29-30 with smart scheduling.

Clay Death
06-15-2012, 02:44 AM
affirmative. no worries.

ahadabans
06-15-2012, 02:45 AM
Djokovic's groundstrokes are superior to the 99% of the tour. Physical decline will not be a big problem for him.

This is complete and utter fan boy rubbish.

Federer's groundstrokes were superior to 99% of the tour too when he was 25. How's that working out for him now?

And for the record, Federer has probably the most technically sound tennis game of any player in history. To think Djokovic is going to somehow avoid this inevitable decline is foolish.

Mark Lenders
06-15-2012, 02:46 AM
Nadal is a much better athlete, though. Much stronger physically. He can sustain his style until 29-30 with smart scheduling.

11-12 years as a top 5 players with his style? That'd be incredible.

Nadal is an amazing athlete so I won't rule out the possibility, but I'd be amazed if it happened.

And yes, Djokovic isn't as good an athlete, but his groundstrokes are better, he's not as reliant on movement. Nadal would be far more affected by a decline on movement, as his game is basically all about movement and footwork.

fivebargate
06-15-2012, 02:46 AM
that is the single greatest record in all of sports that cannot be broken.


For you maybe.

Mark Lenders
06-15-2012, 02:47 AM
This is complete and utter fan boy rubbish.

Federer's groundstrokes were superior to 99% of the tour too when he was 25. How's that working out for him now?

And for the record, Federer has probably the most technically sound tennis game of any player in history. To think Djokovic is going to somehow avoid this inevitable decline is foolish.

Ah Federer is #3 in the world. This is hardly a steep decline. I'd say it's working out very well for him.

No one is suggesting that Djokovic will be winning 3 Slams every year, only that he can remain a top player (top 3-5) longer than Nadal.

hipolymer
06-15-2012, 02:47 AM
This is a classic post. Nadal just turned 26 and Djokovic just turned 25. But somehow it would be REMARKABLE if Nadal was still at the top of the game in 2/3 years. AND YET it's practically a given that Djokovic will be number 1/2?

Good grief you guys really need to be less obvious about how blatantly biased you are.

I'm not disagreeing that in 2/3 years Nadal isn't going to be on a decline, but to think Djokovic won't be too is silly. Federer has only won a single slam since turning 27, and he's the greatest player in history. You telling me Djokovic is going to be ripping 2-3 slams a year when he's 28? Come on already.

Actually he's won 4. ;)

ahadabans
06-15-2012, 02:49 AM
Nadal is a much better athlete, though. Much stronger physically. He can sustain his style until 29-30 with smart scheduling.

Nadal will decline same as every other past tennis player. I think he will always be a threat at RG because of how tailor made his game is for the surface. But in 2 years or so, he will IMO be a non-factor off natural surfaces. He is an amazing athlete, but father time is going to take away some of his endurance, speed and strength no matter how well he takes care of himself and plans his schedule.

Topspindoctor
06-15-2012, 02:51 AM
11-12 years as a top 5 players with his style? That'd be incredible.

Nadal is an amazing athlete so I won't rule out the possibility, but I'd be amazed if it happened.

And yes, Djokovic isn't as good an athlete, but his groundstrokes are better, he's not as reliant on movement. Nadal would be far more affected by a decline on movement, as his game is basically all about movement and footwork.

Are you totally kidding me?

Nadal, Djokovic AND Federer are ALL about movement, it the main part of all of their games (for different reasons).

The main thing Federer has declined is worse movement.

If Djokovic loses even half a step he'll struggle BIG time because he will not be in position to hit his groundies, so he'll shank a ton of balls and his serve isn't good enough to keep him in the game.

Clay Death
06-15-2012, 02:55 AM
This is complete and utter fan boy rubbish.

Federer's groundstrokes were superior to 99% of the tour too when he was 25. How's that working out for him now?

And for the record, Federer has probably the most technically sound tennis game of any player in history. To think Djokovic is going to somehow avoid this inevitable decline is foolish.




have to agree with general jeff.

it is nole`s "movement of death" that defines him best.

he is nothing without it.

ahadabans
06-15-2012, 02:56 AM
Nadal has far more mileage in his body than Djokovic. Mileage is more important than age and Djokovic came into the scene later than Nadal and has a less taxing style.

I'd be very surprised if Nadal didn't decline earlier than him.

I'm not sure the mileage theory works in Tennis. This isn't a high impact sport like basketball where the constant jumping takes a toll on your knees and back. Not saying this isn't a physical game that wears your body down - it is and it does. But hours on court in match play versus actual age? I think actual age is more important.

And keep in mind that much of Nadal's "mileage" is on clay - he wasn't good enough early in his career to make it past early rounds on hard court. Clay is a much more forgiving surface than hard courts - much less wear and tear on your body. So his body has soft mileage on it where as Novak (who has been more successful on hard court) has played more games on a much less forgiving surface.

Nadal's style is more taxing that Djokovic's, but Novak still plays a physical game. He's a baseliner and last I checked he's been clocking 4/5 hour semi-final and final matches at slams this year. So he's really clocking match time right now - probably more than Nadal this year.

BauerAlmeida
06-15-2012, 02:58 AM
His backhand and RoS are his main weapons. Movement helps of course.

ahadabans
06-15-2012, 02:59 AM
Actually he's won 4. ;)

Touche. I typo'd that. 1 since turning 28.

Mark Lenders
06-15-2012, 03:02 AM
Are you totally kidding me?

Nadal, Djokovic AND Federer are ALL about movement, it the main part of all of their games (for different reasons).

The main thing Federer has declined is worse movement.

If Djokovic loses even half a step he'll struggle BIG time because he will not be in position to hit his groundies, so he'll shank a ton of balls and his serve isn't good enough to keep him in the game.

You're underestimating how clean and big Nole's groundstrokes can be. Have you seen him play big hitters like Tsonga, Berdych and co.? He can match them at their own game; he has beaten Berdych many times by outhitting/overpowering him from the baseline, not by employing his variety like Federer or running down every ball like Nadal.

He could easily adopt a game more based on big hitting once his movement declines and still be very successful, remain a top 5 player. On the other hand, I can't imagine Nadal remaining top 5 if his movement has a steep decline.

Clay Death
06-15-2012, 03:03 AM
His backhand and RoS are his main weapons. Movement helps of course.

negative.


you cant hit what you cant see.


his movement allows him to get in position to exercise his options.



nole`s movement of death and his improved fitness are the reason why he has done so well. they allow him to stay in the point.

Mark Lenders
06-15-2012, 03:06 AM
I'm not sure the mileage theory works in Tennis. This isn't a high impact sport like basketball where the constant jumping takes a toll on your knees and back. Not saying this isn't a physical game that wears your body down - it is and it does. But hours on court in match play versus actual age? I think actual age is more important.

And keep in mind that much of Nadal's "mileage" is on clay - he wasn't good enough early in his career to make it past early rounds on hard court. Clay is a much more forgiving surface than hard courts - much less wear and tear on your body. So his body has soft mileage on it where as Novak (who has been more successful on hard court) has played more games on a much less forgiving surface.

Nadal's style is more taxing that Djokovic's, but Novak still plays a physical game. He's a baseliner and last I checked he's been clocking 4/5 hour semi-final and final matches at slams this year. So he's really clocking match time right now - probably more than Nadal this year.

Mileage is definitely more important. Agassi would be a prime example of that.

Good point about Nole's mileage, but he has peaked far later than Nadal and he has only adopted a very physical style since the beginning of 2011. I'd definitely give him more years at the top than Nadal, especially since he depends less on movement than Nadal imo. He could easily adopt a big hitting style successfully if his movement abandons him, he's one of the cleanest, most powerful hitters on tour.

hipolymer
06-15-2012, 03:15 AM
If mileage is important then this should tell you everything.

547 total matches played for Nole
701 total matches played for Rafa
1035 total matches played for Roger

Roger has almost played twice the amount of matches Nole has! Roger's game is more easy on the body but I still think Nole has a few more years at the top of the game on account of him not playing as many matches a la Agassi.

abraxas21
06-15-2012, 03:19 AM
nah, i think he might get another decent chance at a GS later on.

I'd say that the wimbledon-olympics grass circuit mostly represents his last chance at getting back to world number 1, though. after that, there's not many points for him to win, especially not in the indoor season.

Caesar1844
06-15-2012, 03:19 AM
I don't know how much difference matches played makes. These guys spend a lot of time on the practice court when they're not in matches and it's not playing patty-cake. You get knocked out of a tournament early you might play a few less matches but you're still training hard.

Age, number of years on tour, playing style, susceptibility to injuries etc. are far more important. Hewitt has 'only' played 750-800 matches, but he's been a physical wreck for years.

ahadabans
06-15-2012, 03:59 AM
I don't know how much difference matches played makes. These guys spend a lot of time on the practice court when they're not in matches and it's not playing patty-cake. You get knocked out of a tournament early you might play a few less matches but you're still training hard.

Age, number of years on tour, playing style, susceptibility to injuries etc. are far more important. Hewitt has 'only' played 750-800 matches, but he's been a physical wreck for years.

This.

ahadabans
06-15-2012, 04:23 AM
You're underestimating how clean and big Nole's groundstrokes can be. Have you seen him play big hitters like Tsonga, Berdych and co.? He can match them at their own game; he has beaten Berdych many times by outhitting/overpowering him from the baseline, not by employing his variety like Federer or running down every ball like Nadal.


Nole has the best ground game in tennis right now - it's phenominal, and I do agree that will serve him well as he ages. But one thing that I think has helped Federer is his serve. Novak's serve is not nearly as good, so I think he is going to have more trouble as his movement declines. I really don't think there is huge difference between Nadal and Novak in this respect - their games aren't that different. Both guys are baseliners and both guys rely heavily on defense and movement. Nadal grinds a little more and hits with more topspin. Djokovic hits flatter and is slightly more aggressive. Federer has a much more efficient game than both of these players, so comparing either to Federer is IMO invalid.

I'm not big on trying to predict the future either. I really don't think you can see very far out in this sport. There are good bets you can make, but things change very quickly in this sport. Who would have thought at the end of 2010 that Nadal would have been on the outside looking in slam-wise in 2011? One second he's on the verge of a Rafa slam, the next he's fighting for his life at RG to win his lone slam for the year in a final with Roger (who gave him a run for his money). That's how fast it changes.

So when I hear people say Novak or Nadal or whoever is going to be ranked this or wining X slams in 3 years (when they are 28/29 no less). I can't help but laugh. Look at past winners and you'll see a distinct pattern. Guys win a bunch of slams and then suddenly win maybe one or two the rest of their careers. Slam wins go from a lot to nothing in a heartbeat.

If someone pulls this thread up in three years, I think they are going to laugh at everyone talking about Nadal and Nole owning tennis. Not going to happen. Both are going to be happy to be in the running for a single slam, let alone the number one ranking or competing at every slam.

Dougie
06-15-2012, 05:00 AM
You're underestimating how clean and big Nole's groundstrokes can be. Have you seen him play big hitters like Tsonga, Berdych and co.? He can match them at their own game; he has beaten Berdych many times by outhitting/overpowering him from the baseline, not by employing his variety like Federer or running down every ball like Nadal.

He could easily adopt a game more based on big hitting once his movement declines and still be very successful, remain a top 5 player. On the other hand, I can't imagine Nadal remaining top 5 if his movement has a steep decline.

MOvement is just as important for Djokovic as it is for Nadal, just for different reasons. Nadal runs down every ball and is clearly the best defensive player at the moment. But Djokovic´s movement is about getting to the best possible positions that allow him to hit the ball cleanly and hard. If he loses some of his movement, it will immediately result in errors and mediocres shots that will get punished. How many time have you seen Djokovic hit a slice backhand? Not many, because he is always in position to hit it properly with two hands. That takes a lot of movement.

156mphserve
06-15-2012, 05:19 AM
probably a backhand error into the net

evilmindbulgaria
06-15-2012, 05:30 AM
Don't forget that Federer was a point away from the USOpen final in the last 2 years! Realistically, his chances there should be slightly larger than at Wimbledon.

Plus, who do you think can beat Federer at Wimbledon or USOpen besides Nole and Rafa? Murray - doubtful in his current form. Tsonga - probably not, now that he might be out with a broken finger. Berdych - doubtful. Raonic - we'll get a better idea after their match tomorrow. Delpo? Isner?

ahadabans
06-15-2012, 05:30 AM
probably a backhand error into the net

LMAO. Nice.

clokey34
06-15-2012, 05:57 AM
Clay season is over. No more titles for Nadal until 2013 dirt season.

ahadabans
06-15-2012, 06:26 AM
Clay season is over. No more titles for Nadal until 2013 dirt season.

Isn't this thread about Federer?

Caesar1844
06-15-2012, 06:31 AM
Isn't this thread about Federer?
All Federer threads are about Nadal.

All Nadal threads are about Federer.

It is the way of MTF.

ahadabans
06-15-2012, 06:40 AM
All Federer threads are about Nadal.

All Nadal threads are about Federer.

It is the way of MTF.

LOL. Silly me for not knowing that.

GSMnadal
06-15-2012, 07:07 AM
His last shot? No way, that was USO 2011, and he blew it. He can focus on the Quarter final streak.

Chirag
06-15-2012, 07:32 AM
his only chance at a major is the 2012 US Open .

paseo
06-15-2012, 07:47 AM
Fed will win slams until he's 42.

ahadabans
06-15-2012, 07:50 AM
His last shot? No way, that was USO 2011, and he blew it. He can focus on the Quarter final streak.

He wasn't beating Rafa at US Open 2011. His best shot will be at Wimbledon IMO, but only if he can avoid Nadal. US Open this year, again if he can avoid Nadal. Roger isn't beating Nadal in a best of 5 anywhere at this point in his career.

Jimnik
06-15-2012, 08:33 AM
probably a backhand error into the net
:spit:

Sampras' last shot was a backhand volley winner.

Fedex
06-16-2012, 03:59 AM
He wasn't beating Rafa at US Open 2011. His best shot will be at Wimbledon IMO, but only if he can avoid Nadal. US Open this year, again if he can avoid Nadal. Roger isn't beating Nadal in a best of 5 anywhere at this point in his career.

lol nothing at all to base that on.

heya
06-16-2012, 04:59 AM
no more gift clay events and no more fluke slams. aw shucks

Mimi
06-16-2012, 05:06 AM
he is still not playing bad at this "old" age, i think he will at least win 1 more slam, and retire with glory, just like my old pete.

HarryMan
06-16-2012, 05:15 AM
Federer's recent defeats have been to Nadal at RG, Tsonga at Wimbledon, Djokovic at US open, Nadal at AO, and Djokovic at RG.

Apart from the Wimbledon defeat, he has lost to the two best players in the world. He is always in with a chance, albeit a smaller one, and if both Nadal and Djokovic are beaten, however unlikely that may seem, Federer should clean it up. So I would say he will still have his chances for the next 2-3 years.

homogenius
06-16-2012, 06:48 AM
lol nothing at all to base that on.

bar the fact that last time Roger beat Nadal in a slam was... in 2007 ? no, nothing at all

Fedex
06-16-2012, 07:07 AM
bar the fact that last time Roger beat Nadal in a slam was... in 2007 ? no, nothing at all

And, how many times has Federer faced Nadal at the US Open since 2007??

Ziros
06-16-2012, 08:45 AM
It is incorrect to say Nadal would beat Federer at every slam now. Fed in 4 if they played at the US Open

abraxas21
06-16-2012, 08:49 AM
It is incorrect to say Nadal would beat Federer at every slam now. Fed in 4 if they played at the US Open

fedtards never learn :lol:

Caesar1844
06-16-2012, 09:05 AM
Federer will have to get substantially worse before we can say that he is no longer has a shot at winning Slams. Now he is past 30, who knows when that will be - but there are an awful lot of players who have been nowhere as good as Olderer who have won Slams.

homogenius
06-16-2012, 09:23 AM
And, how many times has Federer faced Nadal at the US Open since 2007??

What does it change ? The Fedtards are the first ones saying that all the surfaces play the same so you can't have it both ways.
Anyway, Nadal owns Roger in big matches.It has been like that for a long time now (5 years), be it in Wimbly, at the AO or at the French.Of course once you start a match you always have a chance to win, but honestly who would put money on Roger beating Rafa in a big final in the future ? It would take a lot of favorable circumstances for Roger to achieve that at this point.

On topic, Roger still has a shot with a good draw and some luck but the window is closing by the day.

Caesar1844
06-16-2012, 09:28 AM
What does it change ? The Fedtards are the first ones saying that all the surfaces play the same so you can't have it both ways.
I don't think anyone would claim that all surfaces play the same. The complaint about surface homogenisation is that all surfaces play too similarly.

The USO is by far Nadal's least favourite slam, and is one of Federer's best, so it makes sense that you would expect it to be where Federer's best chances lie.

Of course once you start a match you always have a chance to win, but honestly who would put money on Roger beating Rafa in a big final in the future ?Define 'big final'. I would put money on Federer to beat Nadal at the WTFs any day of the week.

Outdoors... Nadal would definitely start favourite. But he would be a shorter priced favourite at the FO and AO than the other two Slams.

ahadabans
06-16-2012, 09:30 AM
It is incorrect to say Nadal would beat Federer at every slam now. Fed in 4 if they played at the US Open

Fantasy. Best of 5 is as much about mental strength as it is skill level. Fed would lose in 4 on every surface at this point in his career. Rafa is still in his prime and Fed is not. Add to that the fact that Nadal owns Fed in big matches, and there is no other outcome. Sorry you guys. Fed is the greatest player of all time, but he can't beat Nadal at a slam anymore. Those days are over.

sunsfuns
06-16-2012, 10:39 AM
Early last year some "smart guys" claimed that Roger will never beat Rafa again... There is still a good chance of that on faster surfaces no matter how many sets. Off clay Djokovic is a tougher opponent now.

As for the question on hand, the window is of course closing slowly and now some luck would be needed but Roger's still clearly top 3 so I thin chances are decent at Wimbledon and USO this year and next. Too bad there are now Slams indoors...

P.S. USO match is unlikely to ever happen so the outcome will always stay speculation...

duong
06-16-2012, 12:27 PM
I believe more in the US Open now.

last year if Djokovic hadn't saved this match point incredibly, I think he had a very good chance.

And this year many players may be tired for the US Open, not even sure he would have to face Nadal or Djokovic in the semi on "super-saturday".

And the US Open final has been on monday now for many years, why not this year :shrug:

I don't trust him as much in Wimbledon as in the US Open.

Olorin
06-16-2012, 12:32 PM
Yeah, Federer will never beat Nadal ever again. But he dusted him up real good at the WTF last year. 6-0 in the second set, if I recall. Well past his prime he is still a force a nature. Never count Federer out, even at 31.

nalbyfan
06-16-2012, 12:45 PM
he will never win Wimbly or another slam

duong
06-16-2012, 12:58 PM
fedtards never learn :lol:

seriously I'm usually very pessimistic for Fed against Nadal, but if he plays as well as he played against Djokovic last year, yes I think he would have a very big chance against Nadal in the US Open

homogenius
06-16-2012, 01:31 PM
I don't think anyone would claim that all surfaces play the same. The complaint about surface homogenisation is that all surfaces play too similarly.

The USO is by far Nadal's least favourite slam, and is one of Federer's best, so it makes sense that you would expect it to be where Federer's best chances lie.

Define 'big final'. I would put money on Federer to beat Nadal at the WTFs any day of the week.

Outdoors... Nadal would definitely start favourite. But he would be a shorter priced favourite at the FO and AO than the other two Slams.

Either the surfaces have differences and then one can't blame Fed's losses to Nadal outside clay on the homogenisation, or there is almost no difference and then Nadal would have win several AO and USO already (and therefore, Fed would stand no more chance at the USO than say at the FO so we wouldn't have this discussion).Some here should choose one and for all, that's all I'm saying.

I don't think the USO is "by far" Nadal's worst slam.His USO's results are almost identical to his AO's results, and he probably played his best slam on hc at the USO10.Ultimately I don't think it matters anyway : personally I think there are indeed differences between the surfaces but they play a small part in the Fedal rivalry.At the end it will go down to who is stronger mentally and we all know who got balls (and who doesn't)when they face each other in big matches (and by big matches I meant in slams as it is the topic at hands).

Caesar1844
06-16-2012, 03:01 PM
Either the surfaces have differences and then one can't blame Fed's losses to Nadal outside clay on the homogenisation, or there is almost no difference and then Nadal would have win several AO and USO already (and therefore, Fed would stand no more chance at the USO than say at the FO so we wouldn't have this discussion).Some here should choose one and for all, that's all I'm saying.
You realise this isn't a binary issue, right? What you are saying is inherently stupid.

Surface homogenisation exists to a significant extent, and has made it a lot easier for slow-court players to win matches all over the place, including Nadal.

That doesn't mean the surfaces are virtually identical. Pretending this is what people are saying when they complain about surface homogenisation is a strawman.

I don't think the USO is "by far" Nadal's worst slam.His USO's results are almost identical to his AO's results
Not since the AO shifted to Plexicushion.

makesmewonder
06-16-2012, 03:28 PM
I still think Roger can do more than reach semi finals, even though it's a great achievement for someone with 31 years but he can go far and win one more slam. I think Wimbledon he has great chances but will not be his last one for sure.

duong
06-16-2012, 04:04 PM
he probably played his best slam on hc at the USO10.

not for me : his best match in the final maybe, but not at all the rest of the tournament, I think he even played better in 2011.

JediFed
06-16-2012, 04:52 PM
Best of 5 is as much about mental strength as it is skill level.

Well of course, because Roger's already defeated Nadal this year. :angel:

What are you going to say when Nadal loses to Roger in a 5 setter?

That he was injured? :rolleyes:

ahadabans
06-16-2012, 04:58 PM
You realise this isn't a binary issue, right? What you are saying is inherently stupid.

Surface homogenisation exists to a significant extent, and has made it a lot easier for slow-court players to win matches all over the place, including Nadal.

That doesn't mean the surfaces are virtually identical. Pretending this is what people are saying when they complain about surface homogenisation is a strawman.

Not since the AO shifted to Plexicushion.

You guys really need to stop with the court homogenization crap. It's rubbish. If you want to know why the game appears homogenized on all the surfaces, it has to do with racket technology. Pretty hard to serve and volley for example when your opponent can hit an on-the-run 100PMH forehand passing shot down the line. That doesn't have anything to do with the fucking court you guys. Put wooden rackets in everyone's hands and things would look EXACTLY the same as they did 30 years ago.

Wimbledon has had the EXACT SAME FUCKING SUFACE since 2001. Yet every year I hear all this unfounded whining about how they've slowed the court down and now it plays like RG and is slower than the US Open (except the year Nadal won the US Open when they switched the fast US hard courts for clay of course).

You guys are talking out of your asses. All of Federer's 6 Wimbledons were on this supposedly slow-as-shit green clay, yet during the same time he couldn't win more than a single set off Nadal at RG. Fuck off with your court homogenization. It doesn't exist. If you want to whine about something, whine about rackets and strings that can produce winners from 20 feet behind the baseline and 5000 RPM topspin.

Quadruple Tree
06-16-2012, 05:16 PM
I agree that racquet and string technology have played a big role in the modern baseline dominated game, but that doesn't mean the courts haven't been slowed either. Plenty of ATP pros have said the surfaces are playing much slower now. Wimbledon is not the same as in the 90's. That doesn't mean that it's as slow as clay, but it's not as fast as the stuff that Borg, McEnroe, Edberg, Becker, and Sampras played on.

ahadabans
06-16-2012, 05:26 PM
I agree that racquet and string technology have played a big role in the modern baseline dominated game, but that doesn't mean the courts haven't been slowed either. Plenty of ATP pros have said the surfaces are playing much slower now. Wimbledon is not the same as in the 90's. That doesn't mean that it's as slow as clay, but it's not as fast as the stuff that Borg, McEnroe, Edberg, Becker, and Sampras played on.

I think there is confusion over the term "slow" and "fast". I do not think the speed at which the ball travels through the court has changed much if at all. I posted a link in a prior thread where it's stated in plain English that the court change in 2001 was made and tested and had the same speed characteristics of the prior blend (but was much more durable).

I agree the bounce is truer and higher than it used to be, and I really think that is what people are confusing as "slow" and "fast". That has very little to do with the grass and more to do with the dirt underneath it - hardness and other characteristics. A truer and slightly higher bounce is going to make it easier for baseliners to return balls.

Everyone is clamoring about how Halle is so much faster than Wimbledon. Well, they both have 100% rye grass - so the surface is identical. But other factors (climate, hardness of the surface underneath the grass, indoor vs outdoor) all make the bounce a little lower and give the impression it's faster.

This subject annoys me because it's the first thing haters jump to when they want to discredit Nadal's Wimbledon wins. And it's unfounded. Grass is grass. Nadal won Queen's in 2008, which is "faster" than Halle. So maybe just maybe the guy adapted his game to grass and has become a really good grass player. As opposed to all this rubbish about the surface being slowed and playing like clay. Again, give these guys rackets from the 90's and the game would look the exact same as when Sampras won his 7 Wimbledons. You guys are discrediting todays players just because they have better rackets. Look, the game changed and players evolved with it. Doesn't mean their wins today are less meaningful. It's just a different era.

duong
06-16-2012, 05:28 PM
Wimbledon has had the EXACT SAME FUCKING SUFACE since 2001. Yet every year I hear all this unfounded whining about how they've slowed the court down and now it plays like RG and is slower than the US Open (except the year Nadal won the US Open when they switched the fast US hard courts for clay of course).

You guys are talking out of your asses. All of Federer's 6 Wimbledons were on this supposedly slow-as-shit green clay, yet during the same time he couldn't win more than a single set off Nadal at RG. Fuck off with your court homogenization. It doesn't exist. If you want to whine about something, whine about rackets and strings that can produce winners from 20 feet behind the baseline and 5000 RPM topspin.

Federer Federer Federer ... everytime somebody says something about Nadal, it's the only word coming for Nadal's defense.

Nadalfans should be very grateful for Federer :lol:

Nadal owes a lot of his carreer and aura to Federer (Djokovic would definitely have won Roland-Garros last year without Fed's birthday gift)

But there was tennis before Federer :shrug:

Besides, this thread is not about Nadal and grass which is discussed in many topics at the moment like every year :lol:

emotion
06-16-2012, 07:28 PM
He has a better shot this USO

GOAT = Fed
06-16-2012, 07:40 PM
You guys really need to stop with the court homogenization crap. It's rubbish. If you want to know why the game appears homogenized on all the surfaces, it has to do with racket technology. Pretty hard to serve and volley for example when your opponent can hit an on-the-run 100PMH forehand passing shot down the line. That doesn't have anything to do with the fucking court you guys. Put wooden rackets in everyone's hands and things would look EXACTLY the same as they did 30 years ago.

Wimbledon has had the EXACT SAME FUCKING SUFACE since 2001. Yet every year I hear all this unfounded whining about how they've slowed the court down and now it plays like RG and is slower than the US Open (except the year Nadal won the US Open when they switched the fast US hard courts for clay of course).

You guys are talking out of your asses. All of Federer's 6 Wimbledons were on this supposedly slow-as-shit green clay, yet during the same time he couldn't win more than a single set off Nadal at RG. Fuck off with your court homogenization. It doesn't exist. If you want to whine about something, whine about rackets and strings that can produce winners from 20 feet behind the baseline and 5000 RPM topspin.
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/007/508/watch-out-we-got-a-badass-over-here-meme.png

And not a single fact or figure was posted that day.

Burrow
06-16-2012, 07:45 PM
You guys really need to stop with the court homogenization crap. It's rubbish. If you want to know why the game appears homogenized on all the surfaces, it has to do with racket technology. Pretty hard to serve and volley for example when your opponent can hit an on-the-run 100PMH forehand passing shot down the line. That doesn't have anything to do with the fucking court you guys. Put wooden rackets in everyone's hands and things would look EXACTLY the same as they did 30 years ago.

Wimbledon has had the EXACT SAME FUCKING SUFACE since 2001. Yet every year I hear all this unfounded whining about how they've slowed the court down and now it plays like RG and is slower than the US Open (except the year Nadal won the US Open when they switched the fast US hard courts for clay of course).

You guys are talking out of your asses. All of Federer's 6 Wimbledons were on this supposedly slow-as-shit green clay, yet during the same time he couldn't win more than a single set off Nadal at RG. Fuck off with your court homogenization. It doesn't exist. If you want to whine about something, whine about rackets and strings that can produce winners from 20 feet behind the baseline and 5000 RPM topspin.

It has nothing to do with racket technology, which hasn't improved in around 20 years. The game was very different 10 years ago, with the same racket technology. And with the strings, everyone's still using Luxilon and the like, no difference there either.

IsDonsIsGood
06-16-2012, 08:07 PM
Wimbledon has had the EXACT SAME FUCKING SUFACE since 2001. Yet every year I hear all this unfounded whining about how they've slowed the court down and now it plays like RG and is slower than the US Open (except the year Nadal won the US Open when they switched the fast US hard courts for clay of course).

Yes, it's just unfounded whining. Wimbledon is still as fast as it was in 2001.

http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/images/07-minister.jpg

Meanwhile, on planet Earth...

When he first played at Wimbledon, Djokovic said, it was “the fastest surface in the world.” Now, he said, “in my opinion, it got slower.”

Novak Djokovic thinks Wimbledon has gotten slower since 2005. Who to believe? Tough one.

asmazif
06-16-2012, 08:37 PM
It'll probably be a trademark BH shank.

hipolymer
06-16-2012, 09:22 PM
You guys really need to stop with the court homogenization crap. It's rubbish. If you want to know why the game appears homogenized on all the surfaces, it has to do with racket technology. Pretty hard to serve and volley for example when your opponent can hit an on-the-run 100PMH forehand passing shot down the line. That doesn't have anything to do with the fucking court you guys. Put wooden rackets in everyone's hands and things would look EXACTLY the same as they did 30 years ago.

Wimbledon has had the EXACT SAME FUCKING SUFACE since 2001. Yet every year I hear all this unfounded whining about how they've slowed the court down and now it plays like RG and is slower than the US Open (except the year Nadal won the US Open when they switched the fast US hard courts for clay of course).

You guys are talking out of your asses. All of Federer's 6 Wimbledons were on this supposedly slow-as-shit green clay, yet during the same time he couldn't win more than a single set off Nadal at RG. Fuck off with your court homogenization. It doesn't exist. If you want to whine about something, whine about rackets and strings that can produce winners from 20 feet behind the baseline and 5000 RPM topspin.

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

Here you go. You can stop swearing now.

ahadabans
06-16-2012, 09:46 PM
It has nothing to do with racket technology, which hasn't improved in around 20 years. The game was very different 10 years ago, with the same racket technology. And with the strings, everyone's still using Luxilon and the like, no difference there either.

What on earth? Are you trying to tell me there has been no change at all to rackets and strings since 1992??? Yeah, and golf clubs are the same too.

This is absurd. I don't even need to look it up to know it's absurd. Nothing produced today is the same as anything produced in 1992. Technology always advances and moves forward. Back in the 90's, engines in automobiles weren't producing 100 HP per liter. Today they are. It's called advancement. You telling me tennis rackets got stuck in a time warp?

Tennis rackets today have more power and spin than the ones from the early 90's. Who the hell was hitting 100 MPH forehand winners on the run from 20 feet behind the baseline in 1992? Nobody, because it was impossible. The top players today do this crap in practically every match.

ahadabans
06-16-2012, 10:08 PM
Federer Federer Federer ... everytime somebody says something about Nadal, it's the only word coming for Nadal's defense.

Nadalfans should be very grateful for Federer :lol:

Nadal owes a lot of his carreer and aura to Federer (Djokovic would definitely have won Roland-Garros last year without Fed's birthday gift)

But there was tennis before Federer :shrug:

Besides, this thread is not about Nadal and grass which is discussed in many topics at the moment like every year :lol:

A noletard calling me a Rafatard, when I've spent the last day defending Rafa, Roger and Novak (not just one of them). You just lumped me into a group I'm not part of and dismissed my posts because of it. I'm starting to wonder why I have wasted time posting here because the vast majority of you here believe what you want to believe and are about as objective about tennis as religious fanatics are about God. This is really becoming a waste of my time.

All this pointless hating you guys do in here is really unfortunate too because it is taking away from your enjoyment of the game. If you can't appreciate the fact that we have witnessed in the last 8 years three of the greatest players in the history of this sport (Rafa, Roger and now Novak), I'm not sure why you're all here to be honest. You clearly aren't tennis fans. The Australian open this year is one of the best tennis matches in history. And I can say that even though my guy lost. I stayed up all night to see that match and was gutted when Nadal was beaten in the end. But that kind of display of will and determination from both guys is why I watch this sport.

When Sampras ended his career with 14 slams, I thought for sure that record would stand for years - He had dominated for so long and I just didn't think it would be repeated in men's tennis. And then this guy Roger Federer came along dominating tennis like no one in history. Federer has the purest most beautiful tennis game I've ever seen. And his achievements are flat out remarkable and would have been even more so had he not run into a guy named Rafael Nadal. Cut in the mold of Jimmy Conners, Nadal was one of the most mental strong and driven tennis players in history. He never conceded a point and always fought to the bitter end. And it was this relentless spirit that has driven him to 11 slams. Then in 2011 when it looked like Nadal was going to continue his dominance, Novak Djokovic put together the single greatest tennis season in history and dominated Nadal in finals like no one had ever done. Novak's ground game is incredible and coupled with this terrific defense, his now incredible mental strength and endurance, and amazing ROS, he is poised to dominate for years to come.

To have two of these guys the same age (Nadal and Novak) battling each other in their prime is truly a marvel. It's sure to be one of the best rivalries in history. And this just years after we were blessed with another great rivalry in Rafa/Roger.

Soif you guys can't respect what these players are doing and what they have done, you really need to find yourselves a new fucking sport.

Burrow
06-16-2012, 10:46 PM
What on earth? Are you trying to tell me there has been no change at all to rackets and strings since 1992??? Yeah, and golf clubs are the same too.

This is absurd. I don't even need to look it up to know it's absurd. Nothing produced today is the same as anything produced in 1992. Technology always advances and moves forward. Back in the 90's, engines in automobiles weren't producing 100 HP per liter. Today they are. It's called advancement. You telling me tennis rackets got stuck in a time warp?

Tennis rackets today have more power and spin than the ones from the early 90's. Who the hell was hitting 100 MPH forehand winners on the run from 20 feet behind the baseline in 1992? Nobody, because it was impossible. The top players today do this crap in practically every match.

I'd suggest you do research and a lot of it at that. You're probably one of these people who thinks a player is using the racket in which the paintjob portrays, wrong.

Most touring pro's are either using pro stock or past rackets. I haven't been keeping up to date with the latest racket goings on for the last year but one of the men who're hitting "100mph" forehands, Del Potro, last year was using the racket he played with throughout juniors, the Wilson Hyper Prostaff 6.1 95. Pretty obvious Soderling uses the PT630. Many touring pros such as Safin, Calleri and Zabaleta who retired late in the 2000's used the Head Prestige Classic throughout their careers. Kuerten used the PT630. Agassi who hit the ball as hard as anyone used a Radical tour 260 for 15 years until he retired. No one knows for certain what Federer uses, I doubt it's even pro stock, it'll be custom made and tailoured completely to his liking. It certainly won't be too dissimilar to the Pro Staff original though. Djokovic uses an old Radical. I could go on and on.

Sometimes you can tell by visuals, by what stringers say, sometimes fans get a hold of a racket one way or another and gut it but it's common knowledge if you take the time to look.

Looner
06-16-2012, 10:56 PM
Burrow telling it as it is, as always. You can write a lot of words but it doesn't necessarily make sense. ahadabans is a fine example.

ahadabans
06-16-2012, 11:04 PM
I'd suggest you do research and a lot of it at that. You're probably one of these people who thinks a player is using the racket in which the paintjob portrays, wrong.

Most touring pro's are either using pro stock or past rackets. I haven't been keeping up to date with the latest racket goings on for the last year but one of the men who're hitting "100mph" forehands, Del Potro, last year was using the racket he played with throughout juniors, the Wilson Hyper Prostaff 6.1 95. Pretty obvious Soderling uses the PT630. Many touring pros such as Safin, Calleri and Zabaleta who retired late in the 2000's used the Head Prestige Classic throughout their careers. Kuerten used the PT630. Agassi who hit the ball as hard as anyone used a Radical tour 260 for 15 years until he retired. No one knows for certain what Federer uses, I doubt it's even pro stock, it'll be custom made and tailoured completely to his liking. It certainly won't be too dissimilar to the Pro Staff original though. Djokovic uses an old Radical. I could go on and on.

Sometimes you can tell by visuals, by what stringers say, sometimes fans get a hold of a racket one way or another and gut it but it's common knowledge if you take the time to look.

You may want to follow your own advice. It isn't just about the rackets, it is also the stings, which players change like underwear. Read this article if you don't believe me.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/the-new-physics-of-tennis/8339/

And to your point, yes players tend to stick with one racket for their careers. Not disagreeing. But it still doesn't invalidate the idea that racket technology has changed the game. A new player today isn't going to grab an old graphite. He is going to use a newer racket that is invariably going to have better properties because it is more advanced. And with that racket, he will be able to do more things with it. It is what it is.

If Agassi was using the same racket from his youth, that still means he was using technology 20 years prior to that used by today's players. And as great as Agassi's ground game was, he was NOT hitting 100 MPH forehand winners on the run 20 feet behind the baseline. Because you couldn't do it in 1992.

ahadabans
06-16-2012, 11:07 PM
Burrow telling it as it is, as always. You can write a lot of words but it doesn't it make sense. ahadabans is a fine example.

And that post was a fine example of adding nothing to the thread. Bravo.

ahadabans
06-16-2012, 11:11 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soJ_FVnijAw

Here you go. You can stop swearing now.

As if speed is the only determination for how it travels through the court???? Oh dear. You have not actually played this game have you? One serve is a flat serve which hits through the court and bounces lower. The other is a kick serve most likely which has a higher bounce because of the spin put on it. This video tells you absolutely nothing about the surface at all.

70-68
06-16-2012, 11:26 PM
As if speed is the only determination for how it travels through the court???? Oh dear. You have not actually played this game have you? One serve is a flat serve which hits through the court and bounces lower. The other is a kick serve most likely which has a higher bounce because of the spin put on it. This video tells you absolutely nothing about the surface at all.

Since he hit the 2008 serve to the AD court down the T, I doubt it was a kick serve.... Also, he doesn't hit the kick serve and the flat serve with the same speed.

ahadabans
06-16-2012, 11:35 PM
Since he hit the 2008 serve to the AD court down the T, I doubt it was a kick serve.... Also, he doesn't hit the kick serve and the flat serve with the same speed.

Good grief. Take a look at the video again. The two balls are traveling at different angles BEFORE THEY HIT THE FUCKING COURT. This video is allegedly showing the supposed difference in court speed at Wimbledon between 2003 and 2008, yet the ball is traveling at a different angle from racket impact (again before it even hits the court).

How can you guys possibly not see this and then claim the path the ball travels through the court has to do with the surface? Holy mother of pearl. This is so epic fail it should be in the Guinness book of world records.

Burrow
06-16-2012, 11:47 PM
You may want to follow your own advice. It isn't just about the rackets, it is also the stings, which players change like underwear. Read this article if you don't believe me.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/the-new-physics-of-tennis/8339/

And to your point, yes players tend to stick with one racket for their careers. Not disagreeing. But it still doesn't invalidate the idea that racket technology has changed the game. A new player today isn't going to grab an old graphite. He is going to use a newer racket that is invariably going to have better properties because it is more advanced. And with that racket, he will be able to do more things with it. It is what it is.

If Agassi was using the same racket from his youth, that still means he was using technology 20 years prior to that used by today's players. And as great as Agassi's ground game was, he was NOT hitting 100 MPH forehand winners on the run 20 feet behind the baseline. Because you couldn't do it in 1992.

That article is useless and so is your principle of "players hitting 100mph forehands 20 feet behind the baseline" because that simply isn't true. Certain new string technology can allow for balls to be hit with a little more spin, but it's far from revolutionary and it doesn't suit every player. And as you should know, spin doesn't equal power. And that's why players are still using Big Banger Alu power or original.

And what new players do now is irrelevant in this discussion, we are talking about a generation who ARE using older frames or pro stock frames which are often old frames customised.

I don't know where you're going with this but players today aren't hitting the ball any harder than Agassi, Safin or Gonzalez.

70-68
06-17-2012, 12:09 AM
Good grief. Take a look at the video again. The two balls are traveling at different angles BEFORE THEY HIT THE FUCKING COURT. This video is allegedly showing the supposed difference in court speed at Wimbledon between 2003 and 2008, yet the ball is traveling at a different angle from racket impact (again before it even hits the court).

How can you guys possibly not see this and then claim the path the ball travels through the court has to do with the surface? Holy mother of pearl. This is so epic fail it should be in the Guinness book of world records.

The serves might not have been hit exactly the same way, and the ball doesn't land exactly the same place, but you can't say that these are two completely different serves.

There is a significant difference between the two speed after the bounce, and the height of the bounce.

ahadabans
06-17-2012, 12:12 AM
That article is useless and so is your principle of "players hitting 100mph forehands 20 feet behind the baseline" because that simply isn't true. Certain new string technology can allow for balls to be hit with a little more spin, but it's far from revolutionary and it doesn't suit every player. And as you should know, spin doesn't equal power. And that's why players are still using Big Banger Alu power or original.

And what new players do now is irrelevant in this discussion, we are talking about a generation who ARE using older frames or pro stock frames which are often old frames customised.

I don't know where you're going with this but players today aren't hitting the ball any harder than Agassi, Safin or Gonzalez.

You jumped into this argument late I think. My whole point has been that the changes in rackets and strings >>>> court surface changes as far as how the modern game has evolved. All this perceived court homogenization is much more related to former versus the latter.

The only people who bring up changing court speeds are those that want to discredit a player. There's never another reason. Reality is, whether court speeds have changed or not, or whether racket/string technology has changed the game it doesn't matter. All players are playing under the same conditions and all players have access to the same tech. And the best player is winning the slams. That means Federer was the best player on grass when he won Wimbledon. Nadal was the better player on grass when he won in 2008 and 2010. And Novak was the better player last year. It's isn't any more complicated then that. Everyone needs to stop looking for excuses why their guy lost. They lost because they got beat by a better player. It happens. Move on.

TigerTim
06-17-2012, 12:16 AM
don't forget the change of balls, we all saw what a difference that made in 2011 FO

ahadabans
06-17-2012, 12:25 AM
The serves might not have been hit exactly the same way, and the ball doesn't land exactly the same place, but you can't say that these are two completely different serves.

There is a significant difference between the two speed after the bounce, and the height of the bounce.

There is and I'm saying that has more to do with the spin on the ball. The trajectory angle of the serves starts the same and changes before it hits the court. Only way that can happen is if one ball has more spin on it than the other. And that will produce a different height on the bounce and a different speed off the court. One serve is flatter and the other has more top spin.

ahadabans
06-17-2012, 12:26 AM
don't forget the change of balls, we all saw what a difference that made in 2011 FO

That is a good point. Ball changes do impact the game. But we still had the same RG winner, so I'm not sure it made that much of a difference.

FedvsNole
06-23-2012, 06:13 AM
After the draws coming out and federer not having to play a berdych or tsonga or even del potro before the semifinals this is as good of chance HE MAY EVER GET at any slam. Isner will be too tired and have some dum 5 setters so fed should be ok for that I would think.

There's a legit shot that one of nadal/nole may get upset.

If fed cannot beat nole at wimbledon he will never beat him again at least in a slam.

I truly believe this is fed's best and final last shot. This thinking is based on his draw, where his game is at, and that he won't stick around for as long as he says and his level will only slip.

Last shot roger. Give us one more slam memory to remember you by and to quiet your haters. Slaying nole, nadal would give him number 1, his final slam and the legitmacy of his slam were he to beat nole and nadal would be his most impressive EVER!

WAR FED.

Litotes
06-23-2012, 08:29 AM
If fed cannot beat nole at wimbledon he will never beat him again at least in a slam.

I truly believe this is fed's best and final last shot.

Why? He was one point away from beating him in US Open last year. I think most people will agree that Djokovic is playing a little worse than in 2011 (two titles are less than seven). And Federer is playing a little better, at least away from red clay. After all, this year he can take the No. 1 ranking by winning Wimbledon, which was theoretically impossible in 2011. So the chance should definitely be there.

Rafaspin
06-23-2012, 08:46 AM
After the draws coming out and federer not having to play a berdych or tsonga or even del potro before the semifinals this is as good of chance HE MAY EVER GET at any slam. Isner will be too tired and have some dum 5 setters so fed should be ok for that I would think.

There's a legit shot that one of nadal/nole may get upset.

If fed cannot beat nole at wimbledon he will never beat him again at least in a slam.

I truly believe this is fed's best and final last shot. This thinking is based on his draw, where his game is at, and that he won't stick around for as long as he says and his level will only slip.

Last shot roger. Give us one more slam memory to remember you by and to quiet your haters. Slaying nole, nadal would give him number 1, his final slam and the legitmacy of his slam were he to beat nole and nadal would be his most impressive EVER!

WAR FED.

I'd love for Fed to get such a dream final slam eg beating Nole and Nadal in succession to win his 7th Wimbledon - it would be pretty special and the final stamp on his GOAT resume.

I mean don't get me wrong - i'll be cheering for Rafa but having met Fed in 2005 and watched his entire career i've had a sense of awe and appreciation that no fandom could match. I can't be a fed fan because i simply respect him too much - i don't cheer him, i bow to him.

MTwEeZi
06-23-2012, 08:49 AM
Well I bow to no one. Federer has fallen. I will make a thread about this soon.

Rafaspin
06-23-2012, 08:52 AM
Well I bow to no one. Federer has fallen. I will make a thread about this.

I don't know what country your flag is but it looks like a flag of some miniscule country that would bow to any army that would send one tank across it's border. You bow to everyone bitch. Even Madagascar owns your punk ass.

MTwEeZi
06-23-2012, 08:53 AM
You dun want nana this play boy gunz go brat brat

Rafaspin
06-23-2012, 08:56 AM
You dun want nana this play boy gunz go brat brat

Dinky donky dory dinosaur dunks donuts.

I just made as much sense as you.

Poirot123
06-23-2012, 09:00 AM
Federer might not be winning slams as easiy as he was, due to slower conditions benefiting the two outstanding baseline ralliers Djokovic and Nadal. But Federer knows his peak level is still higher than Nadal and Djokovic. It's just a question of reaching that level. Federer knows that over the course of a year, he can still beat Nadal and Djokovic at least once a year, for that reason. And that's why he keeps rolling. Even if Federer ends the year 3-1 down V both Nadal and Djokovic, the one win he takes over them could be in a slam final or semi-final which clinches No. 17.

The diaster that was RG semi-final for Federer was due to conditions. He looked atrocious as he was forced to go for lines due to slowness of the court, and with the wind, it was a very high risk game plan. It folded like a cheap tent very quickly. Indoors at wimbledon (we've had non stop rain in the UK for months now), that won't be the case.

As long as Federer stays fit, he can still win slams for years. No one outside the top 10 can beat him over 5 sets. A lucky draw, more favourable conditions, a bit of help from Murray/Del Po/Berdych/Tsonga (taking out one of Nadal or Djokovic), that annual victory over either Nadal or Djokovic, and he's done it. And I think it will happen.

heya
06-23-2012, 09:17 AM
funny fed troll. your fed was losing tons of fast and slow court matches in 2002 and 2003, and he only lost to djokovic and nadal repeatedly the last 6 years. cry your bs tears.

Dougie
06-23-2012, 09:24 AM
Federer might not be winning slams as easiy as he was, due to slower conditions benefiting the two outstanding baseline ralliers Djokovic and Nadal. But Federer knows his peak level is still higher than Nadal and Djokovic. It's just a question of reaching that level. Federer knows that over the course of a year, he can still beat Nadal and Djokovic at least once a year, for that reason. And that's why he keeps rolling. Even if Federer ends the year 3-1 down V both Nadal and Djokovic, the one win he takes over them could be in a slam final or semi-final which clinches No. 17.

The diaster that was RG semi-final for Federer was due to conditions. He looked atrocious as he was forced to go for lines due to slowness of the court, and with the wind, it was a very high risk game plan. It folded like a cheap tent very quickly. Indoors at wimbledon (we've had non stop rain in the UK for months now), that won't be the case.

As long as Federer stays fit, he can still win slams for years. No one outside the top 10 can beat him over 5 sets. A lucky draw, more favourable conditions, a bit of help from Murray/Del Po/Berdych/Tsonga (taking out one of Nadal or Djokovic), that annual victory over either Nadal or Djokovic, and he's done it. And I think it will happen.

I agree that he can still win GS´s, if everything goes perfectly, but I think you´re giving him a little too much credit. When Nadal, Djokovic and Federer all play at their absolute peak, I wouldn´t say Federer is the necessarily the strongest one of them. He can still do it, but saying he can keep winning slams for years is a bit too optimistic, he has a couple of years left, during which he will probably get 1-2 chances.

FedvsNole
06-24-2012, 10:14 PM
offensive oriented players peak levels are almost always higher than a defensive type of player. Thats what made tsonga, berdych so tough. When they are on and hitting winners they are in control of what happens.

Jimnik
06-25-2012, 12:33 AM
probably a backhand error into the net
This.

Mae
06-25-2012, 01:35 AM
He'll probably snatch one more unfortunately.

I do sincerely hope you are wrong about that!

FedvsNole
07-04-2012, 08:53 PM
No nadal, berdych, or tsonga in his path to the final. Only nole which is better than facing nadal to get to the wimbledon final. Fed is physically breaking down at least for him with more and more back problems. Its stupid to think he'll have an opening like this again next year or in 2014 with his game and health logically only getting worse.

Fed has such an enormous opening. We're on grass. There is no nadal. And he has nole in his way for federer on his best surface given the physicality will be less as will the rallies. Then in the final its murray/tsonga.

Overall this is his best chance he may ever see to win a slam since he's in the semis for the first time at wibledon since 2009.


This is fed's last shot at least for winning wimbledon and possibly even reaching another wimbledon or slam final.


How will he respond.... my guess he'll show up in shit form like he has recently in big time matches and that will be the end of roger federer winning a slam again and we'll all look back and think wow what a shot and opening he had here. All he had was nole and he would have won the final most likely without having to do the impossible of nadal/nole combo.

If only time machines existed and 2006 fed could be transported to play these last two matches. thats what kills me. Nole would never beat prime federer EVER on grass.

Federer4Everer
07-05-2012, 05:02 AM
I agree with FedvNole. It's a great chance he has but in the big game versus Nole I'd guess that it is Nole that brings the "superhuman" game

MuzzahLovah
07-05-2012, 05:47 AM
probably a backhand error into the net

A ball to the face from Novak.

SheepleBuster
07-05-2012, 06:29 AM
I don't see Roger winning this tournament even if he beats Nole. Sooner or later Roger's back is going to catch up with him. Beating Nole is going to be highly challenging too

Drugs Ruin Lives
07-05-2012, 10:22 AM
Fed is finished, and he knows it.

nick the greek
07-05-2012, 10:31 AM
Fed is finished, and he knows it.
Eric Cartman is a wise guy and you must respect his authoritah or else...

Fed fordawin
07-05-2012, 10:32 AM
Federer will still be winning slams when Nadull and Djokovic are on a wheelchair.

nick the greek
07-05-2012, 10:34 AM
Federer will still be winning slams when Nadull and Djokovic are on a wheelchair.
And that prediction is coming from your vast life experience and decades of following tennis?

Litotes
07-05-2012, 11:47 AM
Fed is finished, and he knows it.

When was the last time No. 2 in the world was finished? One thing is for sure, Djokovic is not a great player if his closest rival - over which he has but a slender lead in the rankings - is a washed-up, old has-been with no weapons too slow to move properly anymore.

Orka_n
07-05-2012, 12:32 PM
Don't know if this is Fed's last shot, afterall he is a contender for the title in USO and AO as well (at least right now, on paper).

But with Nadal out here he indeed has a golden opportunity. He has two major obstacles left though. As it should be.

finishingmove
07-05-2012, 12:38 PM
When was the last time No. 2 in the world was finished? One thing is for sure, Djokovic is not a great player if his closest rival - over which he has but a slender lead in the rankings - is a washed-up, old has-been with no weapons too slow to move properly anymore.

Because yes.

Fed fordawin
07-05-2012, 12:39 PM
And that prediction is coming from your vast life experience and decades of following tennis?

From using my brain. You should try it sometimes, it can be really useful!:wavey:

Litotes
07-05-2012, 12:52 PM
Because yes.

Because yes? I am not sure about your meaning here. Do you think Djokovic is not a great player, or do you have a higher opinion of Federer than certain others in this forum?

For me, they are both great players still, even though Federer was clearly better a few years ago and Djokovic was better last year. I don't think either of them are finished yet.

duong
07-05-2012, 01:52 PM
Don't know if this is Fed's last shot, afterall he is a contender for the title in USO and AO as well (at least right now, on paper).

But with Nadal out here he indeed has a golden opportunity.

I don't think so because :

1. he's not in his best form at all

2. Djokovic is in a great form

If Djokovic had been in Roland-Garros's form and Fed in the one even from Australia, yes it could be said like that, but here no.

And imo, there's no reason to think another better opportunity is not possible. In a way, I even think last year's US Open was a better opportunity ... but he can have even better ones like in the Australian Open 2010.

Orka_n
07-05-2012, 02:11 PM
I don't think so because :

1. he's not in his best form at allOf course, but who is to say he will ever reach his best form again?

2. Djokovic is in a great formIndeed but that was also the case in RG 2011. And this is grass.

Of course, even better chances to win slams may arise in the future, I didn't say anything about that. But I stand by my word, this is an excellent opportunity for Federer.

duong
07-05-2012, 02:15 PM
Of course, but who is to say he will ever reach his best form again?

To be precise, I think he was in a great form last year in Roland-Garros and the US Open. I didn't expect at all how great he played in those tournaments, as he was already old and had started declining long ago, then why not again ?

His matches against Nadal in WTF and Indian Wells are also there to maintain this hope.

He's nothing like that in this tournament.

Silvester
07-05-2012, 02:50 PM
He has a great chance at USO - It's very probable that he will be ranked #2 and have Murray on his side for an easy route to the Finals.

AncicCilic
07-05-2012, 03:26 PM
He has a good chance but i don't think it's his last one. IMO next one will come in just a few months in USO and that won't be last either. Actually if you ask me by his game nowadays he is closest to title in USO then in Wimby.

Would be great if he manages this time since so much is at stake and not just the one slam.

FedvsNole
07-06-2012, 03:23 AM
For actually winning another wimbledon. This is about as good as it gets. I would imagine he prefers nole instead of rafa.

Then in the final its his to lose.

This is most likely the last shot at wimbledon he gets EVER for a chance to win the title and no have to go thorugh both nadal and nole.


For me this is it... wimbledon.. and possibly another slam ever...

Im expecting these big matches are too much for federer now as he now plays stinker matches when in the past he would be in jesus mode for the big time hyped up matches... no more like that.. too bad.

congrats nole on back to back wimbledons.

abraxas21
07-06-2012, 03:26 AM
shanked backhand

Alex999
07-06-2012, 04:06 AM
Of course, but who is to say he will ever reach his best form again?

Indeed but that was also the case in RG 2011. And this is grass.

Of course, even better chances to win slams may arise in the future, I didn't say anything about that. But I stand by my word, this is an excellent opportunity for Federer.
grass my a$$ dude. listen, Djokovic is a heavy favorite in this match... only blind Roger fans can't see that. Djesus is at his peak, Roger is struggling ... I know we all cheer for different players, but can you at least try to be a little bit more objective. I'm not saying that Nole will win it tomorrow 100%, I don't like these predictions threads, but some of you Rog fans are something ... all you know is Roger, Roger, ROOOOOOOOOOOOOOGEEEEEEEEEEEEEER ... on the other hand, I find even the thread title so pathetic 'oh,Fed's last shot' (as if Fed has a cancer and he is going to die tomorrow) ... give me some more drama ... No, I think I'm going to watch some good chick flick right now and start believing in love again :p.

Le_Bousier
07-06-2012, 04:36 AM
It's quite difficult to make these kind of predictions.

Who knows what is going to happen in the future. Perhaps Roger raises his level and manages to win Winbly, or the USO or maybe even a Slam next year. I don't know. Anything can happen. I just wouldn't write him off especially now he is ranked #2.

sco
07-06-2012, 05:29 AM
Only Rafa and Nole are beating him consistently at slams - just need some luck (some one to take out Rafa). But tomorrow is a golden opportunity - I hope he wakes up in JesusFed mode because that's what it'll take to get to the Finals and maybe Murray will choke the Finals away.

Honestly
07-06-2012, 07:26 AM
Not last shot but a good one anyway.

Jverweij
07-06-2012, 07:28 AM
pfff alot of posts in this thread I would like to respond to, so I'll just give it a shot.

First of all, people have been writing Federer off for about 3-4 years now. This year he has actually gone up in the rankings, and played some pretty decent tennis. The end of last year was fantastic. I really don't get why people are being so disrespectful to arguably the best player in history (up for debate ofcourse). The guy will turn 31 next month and is still the nr. 2 in the world when players like Nadal and Djokovic are in their prime. This alone should be testimony to him still being a major threat..anywhere. So no, even though he has an opportunity here at Wimbledon, it won't be his last.

Second, I believe it was ahadabans saying that if you cannot appreciate the incredible era we are in for what it is, you should find another sport to follow. I tend to agree with this. I understand that being a Federerfan has been hard since Nadal came along, and that being a Nadalfan has been hard since Djokovic started playing well, and that being a Djokovicfan has only started to be rewarding since last year, but you have to put down your fanglasses and look at it from another point of view. These 3 are so good that between the 3 of them, they've been leaving all other players with nothing but breadcrumbs since about 2003/2004. Without doing any actual research into this, I'd dare to say that men's tennis has never been this popular.

lastly, about Nadal or Djokovic' decline. It's too hard to make any predictions. I figured Nadal's knees would have forced him into early retirement already, but he after every injury he seems to come back just as strong, and just as hungry. Yes his playstyle is taxing, and so is Djokovic' but their superiority over the rest of the bunch is such, that I think they have quite a few good years to come.

sexybeast
07-06-2012, 10:47 AM
Feds last shot could be in the 2016 Wimbledon final against Tomic in the final for all I know. Agassi had his last shot when he was 35 and he was not even as good as Federer at 31.

JanKowalski
07-06-2012, 11:55 AM
Generally, Fed has a better shot at winning US Open than Wimbledon at this stage of his career. Though with Nadal out, this tournament might be the best chance he'll ever have.

Burrow
07-06-2012, 11:57 AM
Feds last shot could be in the 2016 Wimbledon final against Tomic in the final for all I know. Agassi had his last shot when he was 35 and he was not even as good as Federer at 31.

I disagree. I don't think Agassi ever lost his ball striking ability. When he was in position, I think he could hit the ball as well as he ever did. The same can't be said for Federer, unfortunately. I'd give Agassi's level in 2001 the edge over Federer's level today.

Orka_n
07-06-2012, 03:38 PM
Duong, do you agree with me now that this is a golden opportunity for Fed? ;)