How different is the current Federer from the peak Federer? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

How different is the current Federer from the peak Federer?

Pages : [1] 2

BackhandMissile
01-31-2010, 12:17 PM
After watching Roger Federer wipe away the opposition at the Australian Open, I'm bound to ask if we can still talk about the previous slump, and how much of a difference there is between Federer, now, and Federer, at his peak?

Is he actually even better now than he ever was?

Singularity
01-31-2010, 12:19 PM
Would peak Federer have gone down a set and nearly a double break against Davydenko?

kobulingam
01-31-2010, 12:20 PM
return is not as good, first step is not as good, and he has more ups and downs now.. doesnt hit as flat now because he lost the timing to be able to hit flat and still keep the ball in play

federersforehand
01-31-2010, 12:21 PM
3/4 of the last slams, he's as good as ever

superslam77
01-31-2010, 12:22 PM
As long as he can win titles, break records or even do better at tournaments he hasn't won it's good to go. Fed can play as long as he wants and i hope he plays till old. VAMOS

Ivanatis
01-31-2010, 12:22 PM
I think he was pretty close in week 2.

alter ego
01-31-2010, 12:22 PM
No he is not. He is losing much more important points now than before. For instance at 3-1 in the 2nd set he had 4 bp. He made 2 UES with his Fh to let Murray back in to te match.

LEGENDOFTENNIS
01-31-2010, 12:23 PM
Lost that crazy crazy racquet head speed but its still fast and isn't as good at hitting those crazy backhand DTL winners. He's still mad fast but slightly slower then he was.

abraxas21
01-31-2010, 12:23 PM
more serene in the big moments. after he missed what should have been an easy volley to win the AO, I thought he was going to choke the third set away but he held it together and managed to keep playing well.

I still think his footwork ain't quite the same as it was in his prime, though.

FNT
01-31-2010, 12:24 PM
His play is much more patchy now, return is not the same and he relies much more on the tactics of the point rather than pure domination, he isn't as aggressive. What's amazing is that even this way, he's the best player on tour.

Haelfix
01-31-2010, 12:24 PM
Just different really..

He has added a dropshot to his arsenal as he got older, and a better serve. Otoh the baseline isn't nearly as good, the movement isn't as perfect and the return of serve has taken a major hit.
Net game is about the same (brilliant but streaky all the same).

Peak Fed is still a different beast of course.

zlaja777
01-31-2010, 12:25 PM
Basically hes the same, but his competition is stronger.

deliveryman
01-31-2010, 12:26 PM
His footwork has dropped of significantly. Not even close to what it was back in 04-06

The Magician
01-31-2010, 12:27 PM
If you watch his old matches he used to hit these ridiculous backhand passing shots and defensive squash shots to win points. Now he can't do any of that and uses more tactics and endurance to win. Offense is still pretty good though.

This is what I mean :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UOWyoBK-Ac

TabbyHolla
01-31-2010, 12:27 PM
I think it's once again time to start asking again if Federer should retire. Roger has had a great run over the years but let's face it, he's almost 29 years old and its obvious from his recent play that his body is wearing down and its becoming more of a struggle to keep up with the younger players. Although Andy lost to him today, it was quite apparent that the young 22 year old is in much better shape because of his age, but that's how it works with tennis and age. It's hard to watch Federer starting to slide like Pete Sampras did, I think the U.S. Open last year really signaled to us that he should start thinking about an announcement. I have to say though, I doubt in my lifetime I'll see another person as good as Roger and it's sad to see him crumble, but all good things come to an end. I wish the best to you and your family Roger. Thank you for all these great years of genius; the torch is being passed this year for sure.

Clydey
01-31-2010, 12:28 PM
Not much difference at all. However, people have got it in their minds that he's half the player he was. Nothing he does from here on in will convince them otherwise.

superslam77
01-31-2010, 12:34 PM
I think it's once again time to start asking again if Federer should retire. Roger has had a great run over the years but let's face it, he's almost 29 years old and its obvious from his recent play that his body is wearing down and its becoming more of a struggle to keep up with the younger players. Although Andy lost to him today, it was quite apparent that the young 22 year old is in much better shape because of his age, but that's how it works with tennis and age. It's hard to watch Federer starting to slide like Pete Sampras did, I think the U.S. Open last year really signaled to us that he should start thinking about an announcement. I have to say though, I doubt in my lifetime I'll see another person as good as Roger and it's sad to see him crumble, but all good things come to an end. I wish the best to you and your family Roger. Thank you for all these great years of genius; the torch is being passed this year for sure.

ACC championship material

......


i'm so jealous :sad:

Mechlan
01-31-2010, 12:36 PM
He's smarter and plays more strategically but also lacks some explosiveness and is less consistent. I think it's fairly obvious though some people have a difficult time seeing it.

Sunset of Age
01-31-2010, 12:36 PM
Not much difference at all. However, people have got it in their minds that he's half the player he was. Nothing he does from here on in will convince them otherwise.

The big difference is the best-of-5 format in GSs compared to best-of-3 elsewhere. He's still capable of delivery when it's truly necessary, but one can't deny he has lost some consistency in level of playing overall. Might just be his mindset though - a frightening thought for any an opponent in a GS tournament coming this year. ;)

Murray will win a GS in the near future, I'm sure of that. :)

peteroger
01-31-2010, 12:39 PM
I saw 04-05 him in the first two sets of the final today, but overall he is not comparable to what he was in 04-06, when he can bagel pretty much everyone else on tour.

After watching Roger Federer wipe away the opposition at the Australian Open, I'm bound to ask if we can still talk about the previous slump, and how much of a difference there is between Federer, now, and Federer, at his peak?

Is he actually even better now than he ever was?

federersforehand
01-31-2010, 12:39 PM
I think it's once again time to start asking again if Federer should retire. Roger has had a great run over the years but let's face it, he's almost 29 years old and its obvious from his recent play that his body is wearing down and its becoming more of a struggle to keep up with the younger players. Although Andy lost to him today, it was quite apparent that the young 22 year old is in much better shape because of his age, but that's how it works with tennis and age. It's hard to watch Federer starting to slide like Pete Sampras did, I think the U.S. Open last year really signaled to us that he should start thinking about an announcement. I have to say though, I doubt in my lifetime I'll see another person as good as Roger and it's sad to see him crumble, but all good things come to an end. I wish the best to you and your family Roger. Thank you for all these great years of genius; the torch is being passed this year for sure.


this has to be the most retarded post ive ever read, he loses ONE match in a slam out of 30 odd, and he is finished??? your delusional

Byrd
01-31-2010, 12:44 PM
More efficient, and doesn't go all out as much, instead playing percentage tennis.

Fed=ATPTourkilla
01-31-2010, 12:44 PM
On the plus side he has a better serve and is mentally stronger.

On the downside, his movement and return of serve aren't as good.

aulus
01-31-2010, 12:49 PM
better:

serve
mental toughness
drop shot
volleys



worse:

return (quite a lot worse)
speed
consistency off the ground
Wimbledon clothing :o




i think Federer has been more aggressive in the last 2 years than he was in '07 and '08. Federer was much more passive in '07 and '08 than he was during his peak, but is now fairly close to playing as aggressively as he did in '06.

crude oil
01-31-2010, 12:52 PM
federer's bh consisntency these last few matches are up there...he really was controlling murray in the bh side for many rallies.

Apemant
01-31-2010, 12:52 PM
Fed '04 def. Fed '10: 6-2 6-7(8) 6-3 7-5

stebs
01-31-2010, 12:58 PM
He's a very different player. He has a big serve and a greater knowledge gained via experience of how to use it. He is a greater match player, knows how to ride the peaks and troughs of is game in an efficient manner. He has lost a bit from most of his shots, forehand is still a massive weapon but less explosive. More controlled agression rather than just ripping the ball in an outrageous fashion.

He has lost a little foot speed, his ability to hit on the run is not as good as it once was and his passing shots are far weaker. The backhand can go either way but is more vulnerable now for sure but that also relates to his losing speed and agility for running round his BH.

He is so tactically astute now though, results wise it almost makes up for a decline in his overall game. Especially in five set format where it makes a much bigger difference. He knows what his strengths and weaknesses are, he knows how to use them, he brings his A game in the tournaments that count. That is enough to see him record phenomenal results.

Fed=ATPTourkilla
01-31-2010, 12:58 PM
I don't think (when he plays his best) that he's noticeably worse, just different. 06 Fed would hardly have an easy time of it against the Fed that beat Murray today.

However, he can't play with the same intensity all the time any more, and needs to tank the smaller tournaments to avoid tiring himself out.

The younger players will always be the quickest to the big first serve. Back in the day Federer was onto the first serves like lightning. I remember Philippoussis hit about a million aces against old Agassi in the 03 Wimbledon semi-final but could barely manage a single one against Federer in the final. But you have to try and compensate for these things with added experience.

Forehander
01-31-2010, 01:01 PM
First and most notable of course is his movement. Watch back some youtube video of 2003, 2004 and 2005 the foot speed he had was simply stunning. He is still floating around the court now but compared to the past it's really nothing. Second is his concentration I believe, which leads to his patchy performances especially in the finals. Back when he was extremely motivated in 2004 he was super confident and aggressive. All of his final performances are at constant peak level. Although there would still be little patches, there'd be less. He was hungry for titles and the tennis he played was just out of this world. Altogether it gave him that invincibility aura, which now has pretty much crumbled down a bit. As Federer aged, he's strokes are also much less explosive and have changed a little bit. It's probably a change in style of play which prevents himself from injury. Roger playing at his best now, is simply a master. He's tactically smarter and young players are all trying to prove themselves as if they're going through an ultimate trial. Poor guys, born in wrong era.

Apemant
01-31-2010, 01:05 PM
He's a very different player. He has a big serve and a greater knowledge gained via experience of how to use it. He is a greater match player, knows how to ride the peaks and troughs of is game in an efficient manner. He has lost a bit from most of his shots, forehand is still a massive weapon but less explosive. More controlled agression rather than just ripping the ball in an outrageous fashion.

He has lost a little foot speed, his ability to hit on the run is not as good as it once was and his passing shots are far weaker. The backhand can go either way but is more vulnerable now for sure but that also relates to his losing speed and agility for running round his BH.

He is so tactically astute now though, results wise it almost makes up for a decline in his overall game. Especially in five set format where it makes a much bigger difference. He knows what his strengths and weaknesses are, he knows how to use them, he brings his A game in the tournaments that count. That is enough to see him record phenomenal results.

An excellent analysis, stebney. :yeah:

Exactly, he's thinking more out there nowadays. Several years ago he'd just smack the crap out of the ball, feeling confident in his ability to deal with whatever the opponent could throw at him. Several years ago he thought hiting a forehand dropshot would be a shameful thing to do. :devil:

One more difference: he doesn't defend as ferociously as before. When he feels the opponent got the better of him - unless of course it's a setpoint or breakpoint - he just lets go of it, admits he lost the point tactically. This has a relatively big impact - not on himself, but on the opponent. Several years ago everyone was dead-scared of what Roger would do to them if they attacked (and rightly so, I might add). Nowadays, they are way more free in attacking, and that makes life a bit harder for Roger.

Forehander
01-31-2010, 01:09 PM
I think it's once again time to start asking again if Federer should retire. Roger has had a great run over the years but let's face it, he's almost 29 years old and its obvious from his recent play that his body is wearing down and its becoming more of a struggle to keep up with the younger players. Although Andy lost to him today, it was quite apparent that the young 22 year old is in much better shape because of his age, but that's how it works with tennis and age. It's hard to watch Federer starting to slide like Pete Sampras did, I think the U.S. Open last year really signaled to us that he should start thinking about an announcement. I have to say though, I doubt in my lifetime I'll see another person as good as Roger and it's sad to see him crumble, but all good things come to an end. I wish the best to you and your family Roger. Thank you for all these great years of genius; the torch is being passed this year for sure.

Better shape? Murray was the one constantly shown on the large screen to be in physical pain :lol:

TabbyHolla
01-31-2010, 01:14 PM
Better shape? Murray was the one constantly shown on the large screen to be in physical pain :lol:
Yeah, it was really amazing to see Murray's youthful, powerful and quick body shine though despite the fact that he was injured. That third set and tie breaker had great tennis from both and it will be a dream come true to see another GS final match up between them where neither is injured.

Jōris
01-31-2010, 01:18 PM
A step slower but mentally stronger and wiser, not feeling the same pressure as before also helps. As a player his style tailed off a bit but he's a better competitor now.

swebright
01-31-2010, 01:29 PM
Difference:
tatics
patience
fitness
calmness
confidence
grittiness
self awareness (that he's off, but finding a way to win)
concurred the art of "winning ugly"
you have to take me to the 5th. set to beat me
older and wiser Fed

dodo
01-31-2010, 01:30 PM
He's a very different player. He has a big serve and a greater knowledge gained via experience of how to use it. He is a greater match player, knows how to ride the peaks and troughs of is game in an efficient manner. He has lost a bit from most of his shots, forehand is still a massive weapon but less explosive. More controlled agression rather than just ripping the ball in an outrageous fashion.

He has lost a little foot speed, his ability to hit on the run is not as good as it once was and his passing shots are far weaker. The backhand can go either way but is more vulnerable now for sure but that also relates to his losing speed and agility for running round his BH.

He is so tactically astute now though, results wise it almost makes up for a decline in his overall game. Especially in five set format where it makes a much bigger difference. He knows what his strengths and weaknesses are, he knows how to use them, he brings his A game in the tournaments that count. That is enough to see him record phenomenal results.
Good post. Agree with pretty much everything aside from the weaker BH. That would certainly have been true in 08, but it held up beautifully this whole tournament and he was even able to dominate many of his opponents with it, especially Hewitt. He has obviously put in extra work to improve it seeing as he has to play 75% of his groundstrokes from the left corner.

swebright
01-31-2010, 01:39 PM
Better shape? Murray was the one constantly shown on the large screen to be in physical pain :lol:

Yeah, Murray is the one who looks like a ragged doll. Younger guys looks more muscular, but Roger's fitness is #1. Roger looks even skinnier, but all muscle. Suppleness is what you need as a tennis player. No beef.

tealeaves
01-31-2010, 03:31 PM
peak federer won't do this
f1KqPDjjnm8

Surcouf
01-31-2010, 03:56 PM
Federer is just collecting the slams now because Nadal is not around anymore.

He was winning slams, Nadal came and dominated him, caught a lot of injuries and Federer started to win slams again.

While I think that Federer of 2009 and 2010 is clearly less good than the Federer of 2005, we canc conclude that the only reason that he is winning so much slams is that Nadal is done.

Federer would have lost RG and Wimbledon 2009 against the 2008 Nadal, there are no doubts about it.

Singularity
01-31-2010, 04:00 PM
Because Nadal is guaranteed to get to the final in every slam he plays, right?

manuel84
01-31-2010, 04:07 PM
Wow, you know you're the GOAT when you've just won your 16th Slam and people come scrutinizing the difference bet. your game now and your game before.

Surcouf
01-31-2010, 04:15 PM
Because Nadal is guaranteed to get to the final in every slam he plays, right?

In his prime he was, for RG and Wimbledon.

king_roger
01-31-2010, 04:42 PM
Federer is just collecting the slams now because Nadal is not around anymore.

He was winning slams, Nadal came and dominated him, caught a lot of injuries and Federer started to win slams again.

While I think that Federer of 2009 and 2010 is clearly less good than the Federer of 2005, we canc conclude that the only reason that he is winning so much slams is that Nadal is done.

Federer would have lost RG and Wimbledon 2009 against the 2008 Nadal, there are no doubts about it.

And Nadal wouldn't win Wimbledon and AOpen against 2004-06 Fed. So what's your point, besides obvious trolling???

Surcouf
01-31-2010, 04:47 PM
And Nadal wouldn't win Wimbledon and AOpen against 2004-06 Fed. So what's your point, besides obvious trolling???

My point is that Federer is just dominating now because Nadal is injured. It's as simple as that and I thought that he was very clear. But apparently you needed explanations.

Everko
01-31-2010, 05:00 PM
My point is that Federer is just dominating now because Nadal is injured. It's as simple as that and I thought that he was very clear. But apparently you needed explanations.

agree. If Federer had player all his finals against Nadal rather than mug chokers, he would have at most 6 slams(possible wins at US Open). Nadal would have a lot

Quadruple Tree
01-31-2010, 05:02 PM
Well if we're going to assume that someone can run around like a headless chicken on the tennis court for five years and not have any ill effects to his body, I'll just assume that Federer learns how to hit his backhand like Gaudio, and Nadal never wins another tournament.

dodo
01-31-2010, 05:03 PM
agree. If Federer had player all his finals against Nadal rather than mug chokers, he would have at most 6 slams(possible wins at US Open). Nadal would have a lot

solid prediction. might come true.

MrChopin
01-31-2010, 05:04 PM
agree. If Federer had player all his finals against Nadal rather than mug chokers, he would have at most 6 slams(possible wins at US Open). Nadal would have a lot

If Nadal himself wasn't a mug choker, he wouldn't crash and burn to other mug chokers in hardcourt QF and SF with scores of 2-3-2, 2-2-2, and 3-6-ret.

Surcouf
01-31-2010, 05:05 PM
If Nadal himself wasn't plagued by injuries, he wouldn't crash and burn 2-3-2, 2-2-2, 3-6-ret to mug chokers, at least not before the final.

I corrected your post.

HKz
01-31-2010, 05:11 PM
I think it's once again time to start asking again if Federer should retire. Roger has had a great run over the years but let's face it, he's almost 29 years old and its obvious from his recent play that his body is wearing down and its becoming more of a struggle to keep up with the younger players. Although Andy lost to him today, it was quite apparent that the young 22 year old is in much better shape because of his age, but that's how it works with tennis and age. It's hard to watch Federer starting to slide like Pete Sampras did, I think the U.S. Open last year really signaled to us that he should start thinking about an announcement. I have to say though, I doubt in my lifetime I'll see another person as good as Roger and it's sad to see him crumble, but all good things come to an end. I wish the best to you and your family Roger. Thank you for all these great years of genius; the torch is being passed this year for sure.

...Why retire? He isn't Borg here. If he has some success, and if he loves tennis, why not play it till he is old and weak? This isn't like Justine Henin to leave the sport at the top of the game. Let him keep playing, it is poor to talk about whether he should retire. Let him do what he wants.

But @ OP, Mats Wilander I think put it best. Federer is playing a lot less instinctively than in the past which is the biggest difference.

king_roger
01-31-2010, 05:13 PM
My point is that Federer is just dominating now because Nadal is injured. It's as simple as that and I thought that he was very clear. But apparently you needed explanations.

And Nadal is injured simply because of his playing style. I mean, don't get me wrong, he achieved a lot with his tennis. But, on the other hand, if he didn't play as hard as he did over the years, he would have been injury-free, but also slam-less.

king_roger
01-31-2010, 05:15 PM
agree. If Federer had player all his finals against Nadal rather than mug chokers, he would have at most 6 slams(possible wins at US Open). Nadal would have a lot

I noticed there are lots of "if" and "but" in your posts. Well, i got one for you. If Nadal wasn't a lefty, he would have ZERO wins against Federer and ZERO Slams.

wackykid
01-31-2010, 05:40 PM
I corrected your post.

now so you are implying nadal did not get to finals because of injuries??

now... for the slams that federer won:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Nadal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Nadal_career_biography

1) Wim 2003 - Nadal lost to Srichaphan 3rd round... but he is still young to pose any threat...
2) AO 2004 - Nadal lost to Hewitt in 3rd round... again he still yooung...
3) Wimbledon 2004 - Nadal did not play... due to injuries i supposed? but unlikely to pose any threat yet...
4) USO 2004 - Nadal lost 2nd round to Roddick and unlikely to pose threat...
5) Wimbledon 2005 - Nadal lost to... *gasp* Gilles Müller in 2nd round... no injuries either...
6) USO 2005 - Nadal lost to James Blake in 3rd round... no injuries... zzz...
*7) AO 2006 - Nadal missed because of foot injury...
8) Wimbledon 2006 - Nadal lost to Federer... it's getting repetitive -- no injuries...
9) USO 2006 - Nadal lost to Mikhail Youzhny in quarters... healthy...
10) AO2007 - Nadal lost to Gonzalez in quarters... fit as a bull...
11) Wimbledon 2007 - Nadal played like matador and still lost to Federer... fit than a bull...
*12) USO 2007 - Nadal lost to Ferrer 4th round... rumors he suffered injuries during wimbledon but nadal denied it...
13) USO 2008 - Nadal being world no.1 after winning wimbledon, fitter than a bull, lost to Andy Murry semis...
*14) French 2009 - Nadal lost to Soderling 4th round... suffered injuries...
*15) Wimbledon 2009 - Nadal MIA due to injuries...
*16) AO 2010 - Nadal lost to Murry quarters due to injuries...

So out of the 16 slams... only 5 of them MAYBE you can say that he did not enter finals due to injuries... and slams 1 to 4 nadal is not yet ready to pose any threat... we are still left with 11 slam wins that nadal CAN DO NOTHING ABOUT... besides even if healthy nadal reached the 5 slams finals and faced federer... likely he can take *at most* 2 or 3 out of 5... (2006-07 fed is on god-mode) and federer will still have 13...


regards,
wacky

Surcouf
01-31-2010, 05:45 PM
Are you kidding?

Nadal had tendinitis to both of his knees at the US Open 2007, he injured himself badly some days before the tournament and said , before, that if it was not a slam he would not have tried to play it.

He had to take some new laser treatments to try to heal faster but it was not successful. I am not sure I can take the rest of your post seriously if you don't even know that.

TheTennisFanatic
01-31-2010, 05:46 PM
I noticed there are lots of "if" and "but" in your posts. Well, i got one for you. If Nadal wasn't a lefty, he would have ZERO wins against Federer and ZERO Slams.

spot on! however since nadal is actually right-handed in every thing but tennis, I would say that it is rather his own talent than luck.

MrChopin
01-31-2010, 05:46 PM
Peak Fed is probably somewhere 2005-AO 2007. Roche really ironed out his BH and helped him develop a more complete net game, one around which he built attacking. Fed may have been more graceful and imposing (FH and aggressive mindset) prior to Roche, but he had never been as versatile or consistent to that point. After Roche left, Fed's game devolved some, whether due to age or technique. His movement, timing, and form/execution on FH, BH, volleys, and serve are all noticeably weaker. He may play more strategically now than before, safer and looking to exploit specific weaknesses in opponents' games. That, however, wasn't really needed when he was losing 3-5 matches during the peak years.

king_roger
01-31-2010, 06:12 PM
spot on! however since nadal is actually right-handed in every thing but tennis, I would say that it is rather his own talent than luck.

I'm not saying it's luck, it's just a bad matchup for Fed. There are also bad matchups for Rafa: Djokovic, Murray, Davydenko, Del Potro, Soderling...all of them are big hitters with 2-handed backhands, so Nadal's topspin CC forehand isn't as much effective as it is against Fed. That's why Rafa can be blown off the court at USOpen or AOpen by any of these guys. And that Rafa injury talks are just BS, coming from tards who can't accept that their man IS NOT amongst the best on hard courts.

TheTennisFanatic
01-31-2010, 06:24 PM
I'm not saying it's luck, it's just a bad matchup for Fed. There are also bad matchups for Rafa: Djokovic, Murray, Davydenko, Del Potro, Soderling...all of them are big hitters with 2-handed backhands, so Nadal's topspin CC forehand isn't as much effective as it is against Fed. That's why Rafa can be blown off the court at USOpen or AOpen by any of these guys. And that Rafa injury talks are just BS, coming from tards who can't accept that their man IS NOT amongst the best on hard courts.

well i just think lefties in general have an advantage (right handers are not used to playing them while they get to play right handers all the time) and nadal and his uncle consciously making him a lefty for this and to have a better backhand is just an ingenious move. Also you have to think, I nadal had become a right-hander, what kind of a player would he be now? Probably a much better server maybe volleyer, probably wouldn't be such a bad match up for roger and probably wouldn't have bad matchups in other players like Delpo. What do you think?

Apemant
01-31-2010, 07:27 PM
Federer is just collecting the slams now because Nadal is not around anymore.

He was winning slams, Nadal came and dominated him, caught a lot of injuries and Federer started to win slams again.

While I think that Federer of 2009 and 2010 is clearly less good than the Federer of 2005, we canc conclude that the only reason that he is winning so much slams is that Nadal is done.

Federer would have lost RG and Wimbledon 2009 against the 2008 Nadal, there are no doubts about it.

Since Nadal 'came' in 2005 - won his 1st slam, beating Federer along the way - Federer has won ELEVEN more slams. So much for Nadal 'coming and stopping him'. :haha:

But nice try, rafatardinho. :wavey:

king_roger
01-31-2010, 07:34 PM
well i just think lefties in general have an advantage (right handers are not used to playing them while they get to play right handers all the time) and nadal and his uncle consciously making him a lefty for this and to have a better backhand is just an ingenious move. Also you have to think, I nadal had become a right-hander, what kind of a player would he be now? Probably a much better server maybe volleyer, probably wouldn't be such a bad match up for roger and probably wouldn't have bad matchups in other players like Delpo. What do you think?

I think that Fed would own him if Nadal was a right-hander. But i also think that Delpo, Djoko, Soderling etc. would still be bad match ups for Nadal, because his CC topspin forehand (if we presume he would still hit it the same way) would still go right into their forehand hitting zones, and they would still be able to dominate him from the baseline.

juan77
01-31-2010, 09:27 PM
At his peak there used to be several jaw dropping shots and some impossible gets. He used to glide effortlessly to reach balls which seemed so out of reach. It would seem as if he is jogging casually to get to the ball instead of running to get it. He would turn defense to offense in a flash. His service return was unbelievable. He would gobble chew up and spit out big serving players. He used to neutralize their biggest weapon and actually turn it against them with his amazing return game. He used to paint the lines with ridiculous ease. These days the jaw dropping shots are limited to one or 2 per match and his footwork has slowed down a bit. But I am glad he has become craftier and still winning slams through percentage play. At his peak I used to worry that he would decline suddenly when he lost his speed and his reflexes slowed down. His is the kind of game that relies on millimetric precision and if his game is off, it can be off big. But as great champions do, Roger has added craft and guile to his game in the second innings of his career and is doing rather well.

luie
01-31-2010, 10:18 PM
Federer is just collecting the slams now because Nadal is not around anymore.

He was winning slams, Nadal came and dominated him, caught a lot of injuries and Federer started to win slams again.

While I think that Federer of 2009 and 2010 is clearly less good than the Federer of 2005, we canc conclude that the only reason that he is winning so much slams is that Nadal is done.

Federer would have lost RG and Wimbledon 2009 against the 2008 Nadal, there are no doubts about it.
That nadulls business for being a COWARD denying a young player their hard fought victory.Nadull always has "injuries" of some-sought thought his career the difference now is he is being desimated by the younger taller generation with their 2HBH so nadull turns into a scared little girly coward,anyway its just ataught lets see if the trend continues :devil: that will settle the spartan myth once and for all.
Federer can take a hit and still get up ala muhammed ali,
Lets see if nadull can do the same or just another mike tyson.:sad:

barbadosan
01-31-2010, 11:01 PM
My point is that Federer is just dominating now because Nadal is injured. It's as simple as that and I thought that he was very clear. But apparently you needed explanations.

I guess that explains why during that 2005-2009 (AO 2009) period when Nadal was on the scene full time, Roger won what was it 9 or so slams to Nadal's 6.

crude oil
01-31-2010, 11:44 PM
too bad, rafalita's prime was so short lived. i mean what - 2008 french to 2009 australian. lol

rafatards, dont sweat it. nadal will be back, it will take some time and he will take some serious beatings along the way. but he will come back...eventually to his rightful position as #2 in the world. :haha:

cilic, soderling, delpotro, djokovic, murray, davydenko...the list grows on as far as threats to nadal. Even if nadal does get back to his best, he will be facing an onslaught of worth adversaries who can handle his game.

Murray's Mint
02-01-2010, 12:00 AM
Fed's game is different now to "peak" Fed but I'd argue hat the strength in depth of the opposition is higher now but he still keeps winning. He had a slump for sure, whether illness related or not, but he's back to is best now. His all season records of just 3 or 4 losses aren't being repeated as he is listening to his body and focussing more on where it really counts. Age may have weakened some aspects of his game but his overall technique has probably improved.

Roddickominator
02-01-2010, 12:27 AM
Fed's game is different now to "peak" Fed but I'd argue hat the strength in depth of the opposition is higher now but he still keeps winning. He had a slump for sure, whether illness related or not, but he's back to is best now. His all season records of just 3 or 4 losses aren't being repeated as he is listening to his body and focussing more on where it really counts. Age may have weakened some aspects of his game but his overall technique has probably improved.

Agreed completely. Federer isn't quite as dominant because the level of competition has risen(finally). "Peak Fed" and current Fed aren't much different....maybe slightly less consistent now, but that is partly because his opponents have finally risen to the challenge a bit more.

Federer can still play just as well(if not better) than ever on a given night.

NYMIKE
02-01-2010, 02:51 AM
Any fan of Roger must admit that Nadal was a big thorn at his side, Rafa will go down as one of the greatest clay court players ever, but on other surfaces he was a beast only in 2008, and a great run at Australian Open in 2009, we talking about 1.25 seasons, part of being great is sustaining your greatness for a prolonged period of time.

wackykid
02-01-2010, 05:24 AM
Are you kidding?

Nadal had tendinitis to both of his knees at the US Open 2007, he injured himself badly some days before the tournament and said , before, that if it was not a slam he would not have tried to play it.

He had to take some new laser treatments to try to heal faster but it was not successful. I am not sure I can take the rest of your post seriously if you don't even know that.

so...? that's just one slam.... doesn't change the fact that roger has at least 11 slams that a fit and healthy nadal could never have taken away from... :scratch:


regards,
wacky

ballbasher101
02-01-2010, 05:29 AM
At his peak there used to be several jaw dropping shots and some impossible gets. He used to glide effortlessly to reach balls which seemed so out of reach. It would seem as if he is jogging casually to get to the ball instead of running to get it. He would turn defense to offense in a flash. His service return was unbelievable. He would gobble chew up and spit out big serving players. He used to neutralize their biggest weapon and actually turn it against them with his amazing return game. He used to paint the lines with ridiculous ease. These days the jaw dropping shots are limited to one or 2 per match and his footwork has slowed down a bit. But I am glad he has become craftier and still winning slams through percentage play. At his peak I used to worry that he would decline suddenly when he lost his speed and his reflexes slowed down. His is the kind of game that relies on millimetric precision and if his game is off, it can be off big. But as great champions do, Roger has added craft and guile to his game in the second innings of his career and is doing rather well.


I have nothing to add to this very insightful post.

serveandvolley80
02-01-2010, 05:58 AM
I will take tactical Federer over instinctive Federer of old, because his free flowing instinctive game started to dip, it was ugly to watch, he would constantly try to pound that forehand and miss horribly.

Paining the lines and being in your peak only lasts a few years in tennis, it was only a matter of time before his game would go downhill, but because hes using his mind and playing to his opponents weaknesses and capitalizing, he should remain on top for a few years.

However saying that, his serve is so much better, accurate, his volleying has improved, he was never bad at it but he just does it more now. And if you can actually believe it, it actually looks like his fitness has actually improved slightly, crazy for an older guy.

HarryMan
02-01-2010, 05:59 AM
Well, Federer has won four out of the last six slam titles, how much could he have declined?

It could either mean :-

1) Federer is very much in his prime like between 04-06
2) Federer has declined slightly, however, even in his decline, he is still better than the field.

serveandvolley80
02-01-2010, 06:06 AM
Well, Federer has won four out of the last six slam titles, how much could he have declined?

It could either mean :-

1) Federer is very much in his prime like between 04-06
2) Federer has declined slightly, however, even in his decline, he is still better than the field.

Its the old adage of experience making a huge difference, being more mature and thinking out there rather then letting the tennis racquet do the thinking for you and relying on your bread and butter shots.

His mind is a lot better out there then it was in 08.

R.Federer
02-01-2010, 03:00 PM
Would peak Federer have gone down a set and nearly a double break against Davydenko?

That's more a reflection about how "peak" (ie, current) Davydenko is compared to the old Davydenko.

Dini
02-01-2010, 03:02 PM
Can't comment about this tournament, but his volleys were better back in the day (probably because he used to volley more), his forehand was hit with more authority and consistency and there definitely weren't as many backhand shanks.

I think only the serve has improved and his grit.

Shirogane
02-01-2010, 03:28 PM
however, even in his decline, he is still better than the field.
This.

Hingisova
02-01-2010, 03:55 PM
Roger has said himself about his present game, "I'm playing better tennis than ever simply because I had to lift my game to a different level to compete"...every champion has confronted lapses in their game especially over a ten year period (its only human) but with a lot of hard work and dedication you can still overcome adversities and that applies to any vocation in life and in sport..to be and remain a champion takes special ingredients some have it that so many will never achieve..it's just a fact of life! He is presently the "king" of his domain and all bragging rights are his alone..bow now to his marvellous accomplishments:worship:

hingisova:wavey:

kobulingam
02-02-2010, 08:15 PM
He is now recovering almost 100% from mono so he probably wants a few years to dominate using his full movement. His movement was bad for two years and it put a dent in his career. I could see it in his movement (especially to the right). This made his forehand errorprone. It lingers for a long long time and Im
seeing him now get back all his tools back (but not fully because he
has aged). The back problems are going away because that is usually a
lingering issue from mono. "I feel like my movement has come back. I
think that was already good before, but I'd lost the edge in
2008-2009," he said. http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,...-23209,00.html
.... its too bad Feds lingering mono period was timed with Nadals
purple redlining patch.

DrJules
02-02-2010, 08:27 PM
Today he serves better, greater diversity of shots, is tactically more aware and mentally tougher.

Previously moved better, had faster reactions and better return of serve, was more consistent and hit fewer errors.

nsidhan
09-28-2011, 01:22 AM
Current Federer sucks. CANNOT keep a rally going to save his life. Plus he is such a mental midget now. Peak Federer was :worship:. Movement was so fluid. Forehand was SUCH a weapon. Was VERY consistent off that wing. Today, you never know. 50/50 chance that FH is staying in. I was watching some old matches online. Like watching a completely different person now. Now he is more human. He is the GOAT and nothing else.

MuzzahLovah
09-28-2011, 01:53 AM
Today he serves better, greater diversity of shots, is tactically more aware and mentally tougher.

Previously moved better, had faster reactions and better return of serve, was more consistent and hit fewer errors.

mentally tougher- :rolls:

nsidhan
09-28-2011, 02:00 AM
mentally tougher- :rolls:

I am sure DrJules would want to take that back after his horrendous post AO 2010 and current 2011 season ;).

Gabe32
09-28-2011, 02:57 AM
His movement has declined. He hits a ton of unforced backhand errors these days. Most of all he isn't as clutch. There isn't as much of an air of invincibility now. People just keep attacking his backhand because it breaks down and he can no longer run around it.

Imperfect Angel
09-28-2011, 04:06 AM
Current Federer chokes against mugs like Tsonga, Djokovic while Peak Federer would basically sweep them away in no time. Did I even mention one wins slams one doesn't? :p
But the one thing in common between those two is he is no match against Nadal.:p

incognito
09-28-2011, 04:48 AM
Current Federer chokes against mugs like Tsonga, Djokovic while Peak Federer would basically sweep them away in no time. Did I even mention one wins slams one doesn't? :p
But the one thing in common between those two is he is no match against Nadal.:p
So, which years was this Peak Federer active? Since 2007 even when winning Federer hasn't exactly been sweeping Djokovic away, any pre-2007 comparisons wouldn't make sense since pre-2007 Djokovic wasn't a top player. Comparing the USO 2007 final and the USO 2011 semifinal between Djokovic and Federer, my first impression is that of an improved Djokovic, not of a declined Federer. Djokovic had multiple setpoints in the first 2 sets in the USO 2007 final and was not far from being able to win it but he was too inexperienced and inconsistent back then which cost him the big points of the match...

I feel that there's too much mythmaking about Federer, people expect him to play his A++ game at every single stroke against every single player. Is it really reasonable to expect him not to make errors against players like Nadal and Djokovic just because he did not do these errors against the likes of Hewitt and Roddick? Couldn't it have something to do with the fact that most people agree that the defensive skills of both of them and in Djokovic's case the return of serve is considered to be among the all-time best? It's easy to play as Peak Federer against someone who doesn't return every single ball deep within a feet of the baseline. Maybe his opposition during his peak years had as much to do with his level of play as his talent? Just a thought ;)

leng jai
09-28-2011, 04:53 AM
The current Federer moves FAR better. Half the time hes like a blur on court.

Benny_Maths
09-28-2011, 05:13 AM
The current Federer moves FAR better. Half the time hes like a blur on court.

With the way the current Federer plays, half the time you wouldn't think that he had even turned up.:D

nsidhan
09-28-2011, 05:18 AM
The current Federer moves FAR better. Half the time hes like a blur on court.

The rest of the time he is choking ;).

Topspindoctor
09-28-2011, 05:34 AM
Peakerer had better serve, footwork and defense. He also wasn't a mug choker.

Mechlan
09-28-2011, 06:36 AM
So, which years was this Peak Federer active? Since 2007 even when winning Federer hasn't exactly been sweeping Djokovic away, any pre-2007 comparisons wouldn't make sense since pre-2007 Djokovic wasn't a top player. Comparing the USO 2007 final and the USO 2011 semifinal between Djokovic and Federer, my first impression is that of an improved Djokovic, not of a declined Federer. Djokovic had multiple setpoints in the first 2 sets in the USO 2007 final and was not far from being able to win it but he was too inexperienced and inconsistent back then which cost him the big points of the match...

I feel that there's too much mythmaking about Federer, people expect him to play his A++ game at every single stroke against every single player. Is it really reasonable to expect him not to make errors against players like Nadal and Djokovic just because he did not do these errors against the likes of Hewitt and Roddick? Couldn't it have something to do with the fact that most people agree that the defensive skills of both of them and in Djokovic's case the return of serve is considered to be among the all-time best? It's easy to play as Peak Federer against someone who doesn't return every single ball deep within a feet of the baseline. Maybe his opposition during his peak years had as much to do with his level of play as his talent? Just a thought ;)

Sorry but Nadal and Djokovic aren't the only players Federer loses to these days. Post-peak Federer struggles with players he used to eat for breakfast. And tbh you don't even need to consider other players. Go re-watch full matches of Federer's from 2005-2006 and compare them to today. Specifically look at his return of serve, movement, and overall consistency. It's not even close. Not saying that other players haven't improved, but we're talking specifically about Federer here and imo it's absolutely clear as day that he's not the player he used to be.

scoutreporter
09-28-2011, 06:52 AM
in Fed's game, there really is not much difference. He plays as good as he was playing when he 'peaked' . So you can say he is playing at hes peak now. People do the same thing with Nadal , like, ohhh, he is not playing as good as previous years bla bla. Thats not true at all. He is pretty much dominating the whole field (except Nole), and if it wheren't for Nole Nadal would have won Indian wells, miami, madrid, rome, wimbledon and US open in 2011, that would be pretty impressive, 3 grand slams and 4 master series events and probably gonna add davis cup to that.

So, the fact is, that neither crybaby, or nadal have 'faded' or are not playing at their peak, they are playing at their very highest, at their peaks. The only difference is, that Djokovic started coming up in 2007, could say he was starting to peak in 2008, but than he changed the racket, added todd martin to hes team, and he lost hes game. Couldn't serve for 2 years, one season he had more double faults than aces, and still remained nr3 , that just shows how strong he is, when he can be best after nadal and federer without the serve. This year, he improved hes serve, and he got hes stamina up. It means Djokovic is at hes peak now. And its obvious that hes peak is better than both Nadals and Rogers peak. And its also obvious that nadal peak no peak, injured no injured, he is always and always will be better than federer. But lets say for the next 5 years, Nole wins 2 slams a year, that would mean he would be up to 14 at the age of 29, and if he lets say plays until he is about 32-33, that would give him about 3-5 years to win 3 more slams, and that could be very realistic. So folks, say hello to the new and true GOAT, Nole, guy who beat the 'current' Goats 10 times this year...

Caesar1844
09-28-2011, 07:00 AM
This scoutreporter talks so much crap. Whose sock is he?

Everyone attacks his backhand now, like people attack the backhand of any other player who has a one-hander. People forget that two years ago, that would have been a laughable strategy - his backhand was as good as his forehand, and his forehand was better than it is now.

scoutreporter
09-28-2011, 07:15 AM
This scoutreporter talks so much crap. Whose sock is he?

Everyone attacks his backhand now, like people attack the backhand of any other player who has a one-hander. People forget that two years ago, that would have been a laughable strategy - his backhand was as good as his forehand, and his forehand was better than it is now.

LOL, you say I talk crap. As far as I remember, you are the one always having some negative shit to say about Novak and hes country. And you are the one who usually bring politics into discussions... so shut the fk up loser...

Back to topic, you mean two years ago, when Nadal was beating crybaby every time they met? by playing to hes backhand? lol...

Vida
09-28-2011, 08:54 AM
the decline is overrated. fed had the best FO ever, he played real good in australia but couldnt make it, his mental weakness was exposed at wimbledon (but he played well), and usopen semis he was at incredible level but was 'mentally outplayed' at the very end. I mean game-level-wise he couldve won the whole thing.

nalbyfan
09-28-2011, 09:15 AM
the decline is overrated. fed had the best FO ever, he played real good in australia but couldnt make it, his mental weakness was exposed at wimbledon (but he played well), and usopen semis he was at incredible level but was 'mentally outplayed' at the very end. I mean game-level-wise he couldve won the whole thing.

The decline is overrated really ? For the moment he only won Doha. When was the last year with 1 single tourney won ? 2002 ? Or before ?

Vida
09-28-2011, 09:29 AM
The decline is overrated really ? For the moment he only won Doha. When was the last year with 1 single tourney won ? 2002 ? Or before ?

he is less consistent in non-slams for sure. to me it looks like he tries less, which is understandable given his age, and thats very smart. fed always knew his body well, he always made good schedule, and his game is such he can go to the next gear rather easily. I mean had he put more effort he might've put himself into better position to win, say, a masters event. that would've given him more momentum for slams, but would it really help him in, say FO finals vs nadal? or would it rather make him fatigued and thus with less chance to even reach the finals?

that said, the kind of obstacle hed meet in semis or finals would've been of different level than he has met before, given how novak played this season, so overall there is no point in arguing how the fact he hasnt won any non-slam tournaments this year means he has hugely declined. in slams he was more or less there and thats what matters (to him and to everybody else).

Chiseller
09-28-2011, 10:09 AM
It's absolutely understandable why a certain fan group can't accept the fact that Federer is nowhere near the player he once used to be. It wouldn't look good at all.
Albeit being much younger and not that far away from his respective peek it also applies to Nadal.

Vida
09-28-2011, 10:17 AM
It's absolutely understandable why a certain fan group can't accept the fact that Federer is nowhere near the player he once used to be. It wouldn't look good at all.
Albeit being much younger and not that far away from his respective peek it also applies to Nadal.

ehehe, I see your point and its a good point. but on the other hand, certain members of certain fan group go as far almost saying feds peak ended in 04 and everything after it was a bonus, as if hes in abstract that good that he managed to win like 10 slams playing below his level - that line of thinking is bs.

yes, it is clear fed isnt at his peak with 30 years, but he is there, in slam semis and finals. and since he is losing closely that cant be far from any peak. the fact he is that good at that age, actually, means he is quality.

Sophocles
09-28-2011, 12:07 PM
Djokertards need to relax. Just because Fed (& probably Nadal) is well into his decline, it doesn't take anything away from Djokovic. By definition, dominant players never peak at the same time, & this version of Djokovic would have had the odd win against peak Fed.

2011 Fed compared to 2004-7 Fed has a worse serve, worse footwork, worse return of serve, worse slice, worse defence, worse anticipation, worse volleys, worse half-volleys (including from the baseline), worse mentality, more erratic forehand, & no, as opposed to superlatively good, passing shots. He has a better - or at least better used - drop shot and arguably a more solid rallying backhand.

scoutreporter
09-28-2011, 02:36 PM
Djokertards need to relax. Just because Fed (& probably Nadal) is well into his decline, it doesn't take anything away from Djokovic. By definition, dominant players never peak at the same time, & this version of Djokovic would have had the odd win against peak Fed.

2011 Fed compared to 2004-7 Fed has a worse serve, worse footwork, worse return of serve, worse slice, worse defence, worse anticipation, worse volleys, worse half-volleys (including from the baseline), worse mentality, more erratic forehand, & no, as opposed to superlatively good, passing shots. He has a better - or at least better used - drop shot and arguably a more solid rallying backhand.

so you say this nole would get an odd win. there is no logic and there is no sense in that sentence. Because the 'old nole' had those 'odd' wins back than against the peak crybaby...

barbadosan
09-28-2011, 02:54 PM
LOL, you say I talk crap. As far as I remember, you are the one always having some negative shit to say about Novak and hes country. And you are the one who usually bring politics into discussions... so shut the fk up loser...

Back to topic, you mean two years ago, when Nadal was beating crybaby every time they met? by playing to hes backhand? lol...

Is it my imagination or do you have a large memory bank for someone who just joined a month ago. Wonder whose duplicate account you are :eek:

Shinoj
09-28-2011, 04:21 PM
Not much Difference. Only the field has become stronger. He didnt have Nole 2.0 and Nadal the beast back then. Remove these two Federer will more or less dominate the same way.

Sophocles
09-28-2011, 04:41 PM
so you say this nole would get an odd win. there is no logic and there is no sense in that sentence. Because the 'old nole' had those 'odd' wins back than against the peak crybaby...

Actually the old Nole had precisely ONE win against peak Federer. Tell that to the rest of the ward.

Sophocles
09-28-2011, 04:42 PM
Not much Difference. Only the field has become stronger. He didnt have Nole 2.0 and Nadal the beast back then. Remove these two Federer will more or less dominate the same way.

That's funny, I don't remember peak Federer losing to Jo-Wilfried freaking Tsonga in the quarter-finals of Wimbledon....

Benny_Maths
09-28-2011, 05:09 PM
so you say this nole would get an odd win. there is no logic and there is no sense in that sentence. Because the 'old nole' had those 'odd' wins back than against the peak crybaby...

If you (needlessly) choose to attempt to insult someone's intelligence, you would do well to make sure there are no holes in your own logic. If you considered Sophocle's post more carefully, you would have seen that there is actually no inconsistency between what he said, and the observation you made about 'old Nole'. Every player, peak or otherwise, loses from time to time. And those losses could be to a good or bad player.

It's all relative of course. So if player A is superior to player B, player A would most likely only suffer the occasional loss to player B, irrespective of whether player B is at their peak or not.;)

incognito
09-28-2011, 05:20 PM
Actually the old Nole had precisely ONE win against peak Federer. Tell that to the rest of the ward.
So true... Old Nole had zero, I repeat, ZERO wins (out of 0 attempts ;)) in 2004-2005 against Vintage Peak Fed™. Case closed ;)

Shinoj
09-28-2011, 05:52 PM
That's funny, I don't remember peak Federer losing to Jo-Wilfried freaking Tsonga in the quarter-finals of Wimbledon....


He did lose to likes of Nalbandian,Canas during those time.

heya
09-28-2011, 06:05 PM
healthy federer cried, lost to injured new djoker and double-faulter djoker from 2009.

Orka_n
09-28-2011, 06:06 PM
Not much Difference. Only the field has become stronger. He didnt have Nole 2.0 and Nadal the beast back then. Remove these two Federer will more or less dominate the same way.It is crazy how can someone who watches tennis can even think this. Rewatch a few of his matches from back then and then tell me if Federer's footspeed, forehand and return are still the same. :facepalm:

Singularity
09-28-2011, 06:20 PM
He did lose to likes of Nalbandian,Canas during those time.
Not in majors, and in any case 2007 is when the decline started.

FedvsNole
09-28-2011, 06:24 PM
Prime peak Fed wins this years US open, wimbledon, and Aus Open. Specifically, the US open match vs djoker would have been over in 3 or 4 sets and if this fed ever was up 5-3 40-15 in a 5th set serving with 2 match points he doesn't lose that. Also Fed was up 5-3 serving in that second set AO semi vs djoker and in his peak he wouldn't lose that set. Specfically, prime fed has amazing movement not the slipping and sliding into shots like djoker but this fed's footwork, anticipation, and reactions were so good it looked like he just glided over the court effortlessly. Couple that with a sniper forehand at the time which not only was very accurate but came through in clutch situations and he hardly missed during crucial junctions. Also, he didn't have the mental lapses like today.


Just shows you if a 30 yr old Fed who is 85% of what he was is still able to get match points on a player like djoker playing on his fave surface during the run djoker has had and even beats him at the french semi, how damn unbeatable fed was on everything except clay in his prime.

/thread

TBkeeper
09-28-2011, 06:25 PM
oh whatever are you arguing about the truth is ...
Q-How different is the current Federer from the peak Federer?
A-Very different !

Shinoj
09-28-2011, 06:50 PM
It is crazy how can someone who watches tennis can even think this. Rewatch a few of his matches from back then and then tell me if Federer's footspeed, forehand and return are still the same. :facepalm:


So what was the difference in the two sets which Federer played against Djokovic. He was agressive,taking the ball early, dictating the play and was inducing mistakes from Djokovic.

Guess what he was doing the same thing in 03-07, Great Serve, taking the ball early,never rushed on his shots, that meant impeccable timing, and consequently great movement.

Obviously there has to be some difference between the two times, he is conserving energy but at the end of the day he is doing the same things even now, taking the ball early,playing his own game,dominating the rallies.

Also its quite hypothetical scenario, Did he at those times faced an opponent of Calibre of Nadal,Djokovic at those times. The answer is no. No way the Agassi,Roddick,Hewitts,Nalbandian ever compared to Nole and Nadal. These two have much more depth, much much faster,much much fitter. In Plain terms they are just better than the opponents Federer faced.

Its the same question all over again. Can we compare eras? No because each era is progressing in its own way. Only answer to this question is to extrapolate Federer 03-07 into these times. But you cannot do that.

nsidhan
09-28-2011, 07:01 PM
Haha...I am glad I bumped up this thread :D

Huge difference between Peak Fed and Current Fed. Like night and day.

Current Fed sucks. Peak Fed was GOAT.

mikkemus23
09-28-2011, 07:03 PM
I am just watching a random Fed match from 06, Indian Wells final.:eek: And it must be said, it is a fact; he was a better player then. Still great at times these days, but not the same. No way. Speed, footwork, pasingshots, just beautiful to watch. A deadly tiger with grace :lol:
There will never be another!:sad:

nsidhan
09-28-2011, 07:06 PM
I am just watching a random Fed match from 06, Indian Wells final.:eek: And it must be said, it is a fact; he was a better player then. Still great at times these days, but not the same. No way. Speed, footwork, pasingshots, just beautiful to watch. A deadly tiger with grace :lol:
There will never be another!:sad:

Excatly. You will have to re-watch is "peak" matches and ask yourself...would current Fed ever hang in that long in a rally...or play that shot...or construct a point this way...or choke this point. The answer is NO...probably like 98% of the time.

Orka_n
09-28-2011, 07:11 PM
So what was the difference in the two sets which Federer played against Djokovic. He was agressive,taking the ball early, dictating the play and was inducing mistakes from Djokovic.What? Did you even read what I wrote? Fed's footwork, forehand and return was better in his prime. If you want to add on "consistency" to that list, I agree with you.
Obviously there has to be some difference between the two times, he is conserving energy but at the end of the day he is doing the same things even now, taking the ball early,playing his own game,dominating the rallies.Again, not making any sense. Fed is still AIMING to dominate the rallies, yes, but it's clearly not working as well (even against lower opponents) as it did in his peak.

Also its quite hypothetical scenario, Did he at those times faced an opponent of Calibre of Nadal,Djokovic at those times. The answer is no. No way the Agassi,Roddick,Hewitts,Nalbandian ever compared to Nole and Nadal. These two have much more depth, much much faster,much much fitter. In Plain terms they are just better than the opponents Federer faced.This is just untrue. More fit? Hewitt was a fitness monster. Agassi and Davydenko took the ball earlier than both Nadal and Nole do today. Safin was a beast when at his best, Nalbandian too. And Nadal was at least as quick in 2006 as he is now.

gwJjNpoHJgg

FedvsNole
09-28-2011, 07:14 PM
In a time when tennis has become incredibly physical I don't think it takes much to figure out who is the physically more talented player when comparing a federer of 30 years and a federer of 24 years. Aside from the medical physiology of the difference which includes higher testosterone/growth hormones levels which drives a higher lean body mass and lower fat mass ( federer used to be shredded), more explosive movements, faster reactions, more aggresive mentality and better recovery in a 24 year old than a 30 year old couple that with a natural breakdown from playing nearly 1000 matches mostly on concrete nobody in there right mind would say federer is anywhere physically near his prime. Playing djokovic and nadal and getting into long rallies and grinding it out with them almost takes more of a physical resilience than pure talent. The fact that federer is still capable of it shows that at his prime he would only be better in a physical nature. He also doesn't have the same power in his forehand as in his prime that is obvious.


There's a reason most of the greats in tennis have won most if not all of there slams by 28 forget an age of 30. And that doesn't have to do with the competition as much as them losing their ability to compete at their highest level.


P.S. if there's any doubt federer's return was better at his prime. When he played sampras in 2001 on grass, sampras served 70% over 5 sets first serve percentage which is insane and federer still had 14 break points and broke 3 times. Pete served 85 fucking percent in the 5th set on first serve percentage and federer still broke him. Federer was only 19 at the time.

Roadmap
09-28-2011, 07:27 PM
To the person who claimed Agassi can not be compared to Faker :smash: Agassi being able to reach his last grand slam final sixteen years after reaching his first is one of the greatest achievements in the history of this sport.

Roadmap
09-28-2011, 07:31 PM
Come back to me when Djokovic reaches a slam final in 2024.

Vida
09-28-2011, 08:05 PM
somewhat similar games but entirely different talents, agassi and djoker.

undoubtedly, they'll have different paths to greatness, but may, interestingly, end up with similar numbers at the end, and even similar accomplishments (career slam).

tennis2tennis
09-28-2011, 08:07 PM
question how many times did peak federer squander a 2 set lead and lose a match?? let alone a grandslam match?

Roadmap
09-28-2011, 08:13 PM
Agassi should have done more during the middle of his career but that should not take away from what he did past the age of 29.

habibko
09-28-2011, 10:33 PM
without resorting to his season W/L titles and what not, Federer at his peak had match points in the 5th set against Nadal on clay, and was able to bagel him in a 3rd set, and we are talking about his worst surface here against the best player on it, can the current Federer do anything close to this now? he neither has the same stamina nor the same footwork required to execute his game

he never had lost a GS match being up 2 sets to love in his career before losing 2 this year, need I say more?

nsidhan
09-28-2011, 10:39 PM
I was watching his "peak" videos and I am thinking...where the hell is this guy now. Peak Federer has been retired since 2007 or so :sad:

Vida
09-28-2011, 10:41 PM
the fact this is the first season where he lost slam match leading 2 sets doesnt mean anything imo. the sample is too small and too extraordinary (you couldve taken some other category, like points on serve or return, or BP conversion or whatever), and you cant look at it independently from what his opponents did in those two matches. tsonga played great, djoker played great (very close match - doesnt prove a shit). end of story.

Vida
09-28-2011, 10:43 PM
I was watching his "peak" videos and I am thinking...where the hell is this guy now. Peak Federer has been retired since 2007 or so :sad:

what match did you watch? did it involve blake maybe? or roddick? ah, it was ljubicic...

:hug:

nsidhan
09-28-2011, 10:43 PM
the fact this is the first season where he lost slam match leading 2 sets doesnt mean anything imo. the sample is too small and too extraordinary (you couldve taken some other category, like points on serve or return, or BP conversion or whatever), and you cant look at it independently from what his opponents did in those two matches. tsonga played great, djoker played great (very close match - doesnt prove a shit). end of story.

Don't look at a couple matches here and there like the Nole/Tsonga loss. Look at his overall play in 2005/06 say. Point execution, CONSISTENCY. It was waaaay better than now.

Vida
09-28-2011, 10:46 PM
Don't look at a couple matches here and there like the Nole/Tsonga loss. Look at his overall play in 2005/06 say. Point execution, CONSISTENCY. It was waaaay better than now.

overall play in slams aint that worse than peak-fed, as it is being presented. other tournaments, yes. he just doesnt give much shit about those, I guess.

habibko
09-28-2011, 10:58 PM
the reason for confusion and the unwillingness of Rafatards and Noletards to admit he declined - besides the obvious reason - is the fact that he has declined gracefully due to just how good he was and the fact that he has so much desire and fight to go down and become a mere punchbag on tour, he wants to compete and improve and he has changed the way he approached his matches the last few years solely to adapt and keep on winning

being the only player to beat Djokovic in a GS this year and therefore tarnish his year downgrading it from legendary status to simply outstanding is a testament to his will and greatness, more than anything else

rocketassist
09-28-2011, 11:01 PM
He's declined a lot from his 04-07 years end of debate.

Filo V.
09-28-2011, 11:09 PM
General sharpness and consistency at Jesus-Fed level. The biggest difference is that even when Fed was off, he would pretty much always find a way to win and it took special play to take him out. Plus he stayed at Jesus-Fed level a lot longer. Now that level shows up only occasionally, and his "bad" level isn't good enough to win him the matches it did previously.

Singularity
09-28-2011, 11:21 PM
overall play in slams aint that worse than peak-fed, as it is being presented. other tournaments, yes. he just doesnt give much shit about those, I guess.
He reached 18 of 19 finals, and 23 consecutive semi-finals. Since then, 3 quarter-finals, 3 semi-finals, and only one final. Federer of 06 wasn't losing in the QFs to players like Tsonga or Soderling.

Mechlan
09-28-2011, 11:54 PM
the fact this is the first season where he lost slam match leading 2 sets doesnt mean anything imo. the sample is too small and too extraordinary (you couldve taken some other category, like points on serve or return, or BP conversion or whatever), and you cant look at it independently from what his opponents did in those two matches. tsonga played great, djoker played great (very close match - doesnt prove a shit). end of story.

Then look at win percentages. 2005-2006 Federer win percentage: 95%. 2010 was 83%, 2011 is hovering around 80% currently. What's more likely - that the field mysteriously all of a sudden got SO much better (but only against Federer) or that Roger himself declined? It should be pretty easy to just watch a couple of matches to see the difference in his level (day in and day out) but if you want to use those statistics, it's just as easy to see.

Funny how Djokotards want to try and make it appear that Federer's level is almost the same as his peak when it's clear as day that he's not the same player at 25 as 30 (it's really only common sense that he wouldn't be).

nsidhan
09-29-2011, 12:12 AM
what match did you watch? did it involve blake maybe? or roddick? ah, it was ljubicic...

:hug:

No I watched this one. Enjoy.

aaawe4NbQHs

Orka_n
09-29-2011, 01:10 AM
overall play in slams aint that worse than peak-fed, as it is being presented.Wrong. Which you can easily tell by watching his movement and hitting. Or, you could just check his slam results of late. Take your pick.

Shinoj
09-29-2011, 06:14 AM
What? Did you even read what I wrote? Fed's footwork, forehand and return was better in his prime. If you want to add on "consistency" to that list, I agree with you.
Again, not making any sense. Fed is still AIMING to dominate the rallies, yes, but it's clearly not working as well (even against lower opponents) as it did in his peak.

This is just untrue. More fit? Hewitt was a fitness monster. Agassi and Davydenko took the ball earlier than both Nadal and Nole do today. Safin was a beast when at his best, Nalbandian too. And Nadal was at least as quick in 2006 as he is now.

gwJjNpoHJgg


I am sorry but your game also depends a lot upon how your opponents are playing. If a Hewitt or a Davydenko is playing against Federer. Federer knows that he has an upper hand and he will play like that.

Just consider this scenario, In the US Open Semi Final,Federer came out all guns blazing in the first two sets against Djokovic, but Djokovic put that aside and played his own best for the next three sets. Now how many times would a scenario like that happen, the Opponent just didnt concede defeat against Federer. Back in the Old times most of the players would have gone down in 3 sets. But its not happening for him against Nole/Nadal.

Putting Agassi aside because its obviously difficult to compare the greats of different era. i.e Nadal/Nole against Agassi but no way Hewitt,Davydenko,Roddick would compare to Nadal/Nole.


And for those who are saying Federer is not playing as well against the lower Ranked guys, take a look at this vide. Us Open against Monaco.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOLrAYaLZ4Q

Orka_n
09-29-2011, 06:43 AM
I am sorry but your game also depends a lot upon how your opponents are playing. If a Hewitt or a Davydenko is playing against Federer. Federer knows that he has an upper hand and he will play like that.

Just consider this scenario, In the US Open Semi Final,Federer came out all guns blazing in the first two sets against Djokovic, but Djokovic put that aside and played his own best for the next three sets. Now how many times would a scenario like that happen, the Opponent just didnt concede defeat against Federer. Back in the Old times most of the players would have gone down in 3 sets. But its not happening for him against Nole/Nadal.Honestly, how long ago was it you started watching tennis? These arguments are repeated like a mantra on MTF these days and they are as pointless and empty as ever. I do understand the reason why every single Noletard is desperately arguing that Federer is just as good now as in his prime... But that is just a lost cause. If you compared a couple of matches from Fed's prime with this year and still claimed he's at the same level, a doctor would diagnose you with blindness.
Putting Agassi aside because its obviously difficult to compare the greats of different era. i.e Nadal/Nole against Agassi but no way Hewitt,Davydenko,Roddick would compare to Nadal/Nole.This is just your personal opinion, so stop stating it as fact. Also you're forgetting Safin again, and Davydenko owns Nadal.

And for those who are saying Federer is not playing as well against the lower Ranked guys, take a look at this vide. Us Open against Monaco.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOLrAYaLZ4QSo basically he managed to play at a great level for one match this year, against an opponent who was playing terribly no less. Yeah, that's all the proof we need. :scratch:

Topspindoctor
09-29-2011, 06:46 AM
and Davydenko owns Nadal.


Wow, so 6-4 H2H is apparently "owning" these days :o

I wonder what you would describe a 17-8 H2H as?

Orka_n
09-29-2011, 06:53 AM
Wow, so 6-4 H2H is apparently "owning" these days :o

I wonder what you would describe a 17-8 H2H as?Nadal owns Fed on clay. Off clay he doesn't. Same story with with Davydenko.

Mechlan
09-29-2011, 06:56 AM
I am sorry but your game also depends a lot upon how your opponents are playing. If a Hewitt or a Davydenko is playing against Federer. Federer knows that he has an upper hand and he will play like that.

Just consider this scenario, In the US Open Semi Final,Federer came out all guns blazing in the first two sets against Djokovic, but Djokovic put that aside and played his own best for the next three sets. Now how many times would a scenario like that happen, the Opponent just didnt concede defeat against Federer. Back in the Old times most of the players would have gone down in 3 sets. But its not happening for him against Nole/Nadal.

Putting Agassi aside because its obviously difficult to compare the greats of different era. i.e Nadal/Nole against Agassi but no way Hewitt,Davydenko,Roddick would compare to Nadal/Nole.


And for those who are saying Federer is not playing as well against the lower Ranked guys, take a look at this vide. Us Open against Monaco.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOLrAYaLZ4Q

You're making this way too hard. It's not so difficult. Go back and watch matches (entire matches, not just highlights) and see how many shanks Federer had in his prime. See how he plays guys like Berdych and Tsonga. Now compare to how he plays them today. Federer's movement is worse, his consistency is worse, his return is a LOT worse. Every once in a while, Federer will play out of his mind. In his prime, he used to play like that a lot more often. And his dips happened a lot less frequently. That's the difference between current Federer and peak Federer.

The match against Djokovic is actually a perfect example. Djokovic didn't do anything that special to win the third set. He played solidly. Certainly the fourth set was terrible from Federer. The fifth they both played well and Djokovic deservedly won. But in his prime, Federer probably wins that match. Belief had very little to do with the win here. Djokovic won it because he is young and consistent and Federer is older and not as consistent.

Another example of a young Federer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZ9ueAKKMCU

Topspindoctor
09-29-2011, 06:59 AM
Nadal owns Fed on clay. Off clay he doesn't. Same story with with Davydenko.

Why do people use this arguement?

Clay is not a legitimate surface?

Orka_n
09-29-2011, 07:06 AM
Why do people use this arguement?

Clay is not a legitimate surface?What are you on about now? You asked what I would describe a 17-8 H2H as, and I answered that Nadal owns Federer on clay (12-2) but not on the other surfaces (5-6). Nowhere did I say clay didn't count. This shouldn't be too hard to grasp.

heya
09-29-2011, 07:09 AM
federer reaching finals in a decade of weak tennis equals federinabestever? so the only way he plays his peak best is if he beats nadal in 3 or 4 slams every year? lolz who cares that mostly crap players were in semis and finals between 2003 and 2006?

Lurking
09-29-2011, 07:10 AM
Just consider this scenario, In the US Open Semi Final,Federer came out all guns blazing in the first two sets against Djokovic, but Djokovic put that aside and played his own best for the next three sets. Now how many times would a scenario like that happen, the Opponent just didnt concede defeat against Federer. Back in the Old times most of the players would have gone down in 3 sets. But its not happening for him against Nole/Nadal.


Federer in 2007 played 0 5 setters before the F
Federer in 2008 played 2 5 setters before the F
Federer in 2009 won 2 5 setters from 0-2 down before SF
Federer in 2010 lost 2 times before the SF
Federer in 2011 lost 2 times from 2 sets up

Yet there's no decline.

Topspindoctor
09-29-2011, 07:10 AM
What are you on about now? You asked what I would describe a 17-8 H2H as, and I answered that Nadal owns Federer on clay (12-2) but not on the other surfaces (5-6). Nowhere did I say clay didn't count. This shouldn't be too hard to grasp.

H2H is H2H - surfaces should not factor into argument IMO. You could easily say Nadal is 12-2 against Federer or 5-6 depending on how biased you are.

heya
09-29-2011, 07:33 AM
wins don't need high quality if federer wins and it is a fedfan rule that if you wish so much that federer is the best ever, ignore the matches' details.
according to fedfanatics, he is in decline if he loses to an injured djoker. meanwhile, federer was supposed to be superfed because he played all year in 2008.

Orka_n
09-29-2011, 07:35 AM
H2H is H2H - surfaces should not factor into argument IMO. You could easily say Nadal is 12-2 against Federer or 5-6 depending on how biased you are.Uh, no. Tennis is a sport played on several different surfaces, which despite the ATP's best efforts still have some unique characteristics to them. To analyze the total H2H by surface isn't a stretch at all.

Navratil
09-29-2011, 07:56 AM
Not that much!

But he lost self-confidence and is mentally not that strong as he was at his peak.

EddieNero
09-29-2011, 08:14 AM
Worse footwork, forehand which faded away, WTA-like mentality, no hunger for winning, having a wife and 2 babies.
No real differences to peak Fed.

Shinoj
09-29-2011, 08:22 AM
Honestly, how long ago was it you started watching tennis? These arguments are repeated like a mantra on MTF these days and they are as pointless and empty as ever. I do understand the reason why every single Noletard is desperately arguing that Federer is just as good now as in his prime... But that is just a lost cause. If you compared a couple of matches from Fed's prime with this year and still claimed he's at the same level, a doctor would diagnose you with blindness.
This is just your personal opinion, so stop stating it as fact. Also you're forgetting Safin again, and Davydenko owns Nadal.

So basically he managed to play at a great level for one match this year, against an opponent who was playing terribly no less. Yeah, that's all the proof we need. :scratch:

Lets look at the losses which he faced in 2011

Against Djokovic 4 losses
Against Nadal 3 losses
Against Melzer
Against Tsonga 2
Against Berdych

So if he keeps losing to Djokovic and Nadal time and again obviously his confidence will take a knock. Thats what would have happened against Melzer.

And against Tsonga i watched the Wimbeldon match and Tsonga just blasted him off the court for the last three sets. Sometimes you have to give credit to the opponents. Its not always upto Federer to win or lose the match.

And Berdych could be said a bogeyman for Federer. All the great players had one.

So all in all Federer didnt have a bad year but Nole and Nadal have taken it to the next level. Its what had happened after McEnroe came,after Becker came,Sampras,Agassi,Your own Federer.Its just Tennis evolution.

And you are accusing me of being a Noletard then you are Federinas or whatever.

heya
09-29-2011, 08:25 AM
same shocked attitude everytime he loses. 'omg, real tennis's only on fast surfaces. only I, federer, CAN QUIT PLAYING. DJOKER IS NOT INJURED.'

Orka_n
09-29-2011, 08:35 AM
Lets look at the losses which he faced in 2011

Against Djokovic 4 losses
Against Nadal 3 losses
Against Melzer
Against Tsonga 2
Against Berdych

So if he keeps losing to Djokovic and Nadal time and again obviously his confidence will take a knock. Thats what would have happened against Melzer.

And against Tsonga i watched the Wimbeldon match and Tsonga just blasted him off the court for the last three sets. Sometimes you have to give credit to the opponents. Its not always upto Federer to win or lose the match.

And Berdych could be said a bogeyman for Federer. All the great players had one.

So all in all Federer didnt have a bad year but Nole and Nadal have taken it to the next level. Its what had happened after McEnroe came,after Becker came,Sampras,Agassi,Your own Federer.Its just Tennis evolution.

And you are accusing me of being a Noletard then you are Federinas or whatever.Firstly, yes I am a Federer fan. :shrug: Secondly, if Fed had a bogeyman in his prime it was Nadal and not Berdych. :o Thirdly, as Mechlan said, you're making this far too complicated. Just go watch some of his matches from back then and you'll see his game has clearly deteriorated.

Vida
09-29-2011, 10:03 AM
You're making this way too hard. It's not so difficult. Go back and watch matches (entire matches, not just highlights) and see how many shanks Federer had in his prime. See how he plays guys like Berdych and Tsonga. Now compare to how he plays them today. Federer's movement is worse, his consistency is worse, his return is a LOT worse. Every once in a while, Federer will play out of his mind. In his prime, he used to play like that a lot more often. And his dips happened a lot less frequently. That's the difference between current Federer and peak Federer.

The match against Djokovic is actually a perfect example. Djokovic didn't do anything that special to win the third set. He played solidly. Certainly the fourth set was terrible from Federer. The fifth they both played well and Djokovic deservedly won. But in his prime, Federer probably wins that match. Belief had very little to do with the win here. Djokovic won it because he is young and consistent and Federer is older and not as consistent.

Another example of a young Federer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZ9ueAKKMCU

match was basically decided with one point, with which the momentum (confidence) shifted. how on earth does that have little to do with belief, escapes me.

that match was won purely on confidence in the deciding moment. 2 mp down, novak swallowed the defeat, digested it, and went all out on that return, at what point fed crumbled mentally while novak raised and thus won the match.

only way how you could possibly claim that prime fed would've won this match would be to say he would've closed it in 3 sets, and that would make sense if he wasnt playing novak. thats cause novak by his own admission, raised his game in the 3rd. imo it would've been incredibly difficult even for prime fed to keep his exact tempo from first 2 sets (and 1st set was very close). in the end, even in prime vs prime it would boil down to confidence in deciding moment, and there its a coin toss between these two.

EddieNero
09-29-2011, 10:14 AM
match was basically decided with one point, with which the momentum (confidence) shifted. how on earth does that have little to do with belief, escapes me.

that match was won purely on confidence in the deciding moment. 2 mp down, novak swallowed the defeat, digested it, and went all out on that return, at what point fed crumbled mentally while novak raised and thus won the match.

only way how you could possibly claim that prime fed would've won this match would be to say he would've closed it in 3 sets, and that would make sense if he wasnt playing novak. thats cause novak by his own admission, raised his game in the 3rd. imo it would've been incredibly difficult even for prime fed to keep his exact tempo from first 2 sets (and 1st set was very close). in the end, even in prime vs prime it would boil down to confidence in deciding moment, and there its a coin toss between these two.

Olderer's tempo is not even close to Primerer's. Roger is playing icredibly slow now, allowing champions like Tsonga or Berdych to defend/counter the ball and that's why Djokovics defensive skills look so good when facing Olderer.

Novak was unable to catch up with Federer's tempo in Paris for the most of the time and they were playing on CLAY.
Peak Federer would eat this Nole alive in straights, despite this year US Open was held on a pathetically slow surface.

In USO 2007 final Nole's level was very close to current one( he was better in some departments IMO)and Federer finished it off quite smoothly.

Vida
09-29-2011, 10:21 AM
Olderer's tempo is not even close to Primerer's. Roger is playing icredibly slow now, allowing champions like Tsonga or Berdych to defend/counter the ball and that's why Djokovics defensive skills look so good when facing Olderer.

Novak was unable to catch up with Federer's tempo in Paris for the most of the time and they were playing on CLAY.
Peak Federer would eat this Nole alive in straights, despite this year US Open was held on a pathetically slow surface.

eat him alive? lol, you fed fans are on permanent high from the beatings fed gave roddick, blake and allergy ridden novak... this novak is different animal and in no way in hell would prime fed had it easy against him.

bokehlicious
09-29-2011, 10:26 AM
eat him alive? lol, you fed fans are on permanent high from the beatings fed gave roddick, blake and allergy ridden novak... this novak is different animal and in no way in hell would prime fed had it easy against him.

Grandaderer proved to be prime Novak worst nightmare, sorry but prime Fed is no match for Nole :awww: :hug:

Start da Game
09-29-2011, 01:13 PM
Would peak Federer have gone down a set and nearly a double break against Davydenko?

davydenko held a bunch of set points for a 2 sets to 1 lead over him in 2006 AO and choked like a rat.....who is tommy haas? he took him to 5 sets in the same tournament.....

get over the myth that he peaked in 2004 and clowned it up after 2006.....no great player clowns it up at 24, 25 unless he's been at the top and winning consistently for 7 or 8 years already.....peak, non peak is all relative......

present fed has better serve, better return of serve, much better backhand, better slice, better all round game, more number of options, better dropshot......i was not at all surprised when he said he is now a much better player than what he was 5 years ago......

bokehlicious
09-29-2011, 01:20 PM
present fed has better serve, better return of serve, much better backhand, better slice, better all round game, more number of options, better dropshot.......

:haha:

Commander Data
09-29-2011, 01:42 PM
Fedhaters seek refuge in the absurd fantasy that Olderer - who has changed racket with diapers and just plays for fun these days after having shattered virtually every record - is more dangerous then Peak Fed.

They should be happy that Fed has not the same age as their man, otherwise they would just be another Davydenko or Roddick left to pick up the bread crumbs of the GOAT.

TBkeeper
09-29-2011, 01:56 PM
sooo .... the field now is stronger ? ??!!??!? WHAT THE fuck :D :D how can it be ?
how can Nole beat this Davydenko ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBXANW9clw0 or this Safin ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0fM3mka_9U ... whatever Davydenko like Orka said Davydenko took the ball earlier than every shitty player now ...

MaxPower
09-29-2011, 01:56 PM
Of course he is worse. But I don't get why people say he has worse bh, worse fh, worse slice, worse...

In the end it's all about his movement. Peak Fed was flying around the court much like a Dolgopolov on juice. He could walk around the FH all the time and send bombs which creates the illusion that his FH was better then. It was because he had more time.

Faster movement gives you more time and more options. That is what he has lost. Time and options. In his peak he could choose whether to take the ball super-early, setup for a big winner, take pace out with a slice and recover, he could dominate his matches and play however he wanted. Nowadays he often gets behind in rallies in a way that would never happen to peak Fed.

In the end all his skills, his serve, his excellent netgame and his mental strength is intact. He just doesn't have the foot-speed

leng jai
09-29-2011, 02:11 PM
Whats with all these gimps throwing out endless stats? Just watch his past matches and the difference is obvious to anyone with half a brain.

Start da Game
09-29-2011, 02:15 PM
^^^any above average to brilliant clown can appear like skating on ice against uncle baldies davydenko, ljubicic, blake and dumb movers like roddick, hewitt......you are only as good as your opponents let you be......by the way he flied fine against djokovic this year......i will say this for the hundredth time: get over the peak myth and see the reality, the sooner you see the more respectable for you all it is......

bokehlicious
09-29-2011, 02:19 PM
fart da brain making sure to cruise to the ACC title :sport: clever kid

leng jai
09-29-2011, 02:29 PM
^^^any above average to brilliant clown can appear like skating on ice against uncle baldies davydenko, ljubicic, blake and dumb movers like roddick, hewitt......you are only as good as your opponents let you be......by the way he flied fine against djokovic this year......i will say this for the hundredth time: get over the peak myth and see the reality, the sooner you see the more respectable for you all it is......

Yeah because the current top 10 is full of amazing players like Monfils, Fish, Ferrer and Tsonga. The only player who has improved significantly since Federer's peak years is Faker.

Sophocles
09-29-2011, 02:54 PM
Yeah because the current top 10 is full of amazing players like Monfils, Fish, Ferrer and Tsonga. The only player who has improved significantly since Federer's peak years is Faker.

Exactly. (Arguably Nadull on hard courts too.)

Unsurprisingly, Rafatards & Djokertards - & I distinguish between tards & fans here - fail to realise their whole argument about better competition begs the question. Why exactly are Nadal & Djokovic presumed to be better opponents than Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Agassi, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Moya, Ferrero, Coria, Gaudio, Haas, Grosjean, Henman, pre-2008 Nadal & Djoker? Precisely because present-day Nadal & Djoker can be relied on to beat Federer most times, whereas those others - with the signal exception of Nadal on clay - could NOT. But if Federer has indeed declined, then their present success against Federer can be explained by that, & we can surmise that peak Federer would have continued making them look like the others.

The truth is that Federer has declined, Djoker has got significantly better, or at least more consistent & confident & fitter, & Nadal has improved on hard courts, while arguably declining on clay. Their level of play suggests they would have beaten peak Fed more often than the likes of Roddick & Hewitt managed, but to do that in slams you need only 1 more win than zero - and if you put ANY great player's successors at No. 1 into his peak era, you will get the same result. 2011 Nole in 2008-11 & Nadal would have had fewer slams. Peak Fed in the '90s, Sampras has fewer slams. Peak Sampras in the '80s, Lendl has fewer - and so on.

This is quite apart from the point that the rest of the Top 10 was probably better in Federer's peak period than it is today.

In the modern game, from the early 1970s onwards, no dominant player has been as good at 30 as he was at 25. It is fantasy to imagine Federer is a miraculous exception.

Shinoj
09-29-2011, 02:59 PM
How does the Top 10 matters when from the semis onwards only 4 guys can play?

Sophocles
09-29-2011, 03:03 PM
How does the Top 10 matters when from the semis onwards only 4 guys can play?

Because you have to win 5 matches to get to the semis?

Shinoj
09-29-2011, 03:13 PM
Federer in both the eras was reaching the semis. he was reaching then he is reaching even now. Now he is having problems with the Top 2 3,i.e Nadal and Djokovic whereas he was hammering the likes of Hewitt,Roddick,Davydenko,Tommy Haas and Sargis sargsian.

Its within the Top 3 4 he is having problems now. How much you guys bloat over it the fact remains the Top 4 were way better than 2004-2008.

EddieNero
09-29-2011, 03:30 PM
Exactly. (Arguably Nadull on hard courts too.)

Unsurprisingly, Rafatards & Djokertards - & I distinguish between tards & fans here - fail to realise their whole argument about better competition begs the question. Why exactly are Nadal & Djokovic presumed to be better opponents than Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Agassi, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Moya, Ferrero, Coria, Gaudio, Haas, Grosjean, Henman, pre-2008 Nadal & Djoker? Precisely because present-day Nadal & Djoker can be relied on to beat Federer most times, whereas those others - with the signal exception of Nadal on clay - could NOT. But if Federer has indeed declined, then their present success against Federer can be explained by that, & we can surmise that peak Federer would have continued making them look like the others.

The truth is that Federer has declined, Djoker has got significantly better, or at least more consistent & confident & fitter, & Nadal has improved on hard courts, while arguably declining on clay. Their level of play suggests they would have beaten peak Fed more often than the likes of Roddick & Hewitt managed, but to do that in slams you need only 1 more win than zero - and if you put ANY great player's successors at No. 1 into his peak era, you will get the same result. 2011 Nole in 2008-11 & Nadal would have had fewer slams. Peak Fed in the '90s, Sampras has fewer slams. Peak Sampras in the '80s, Lendl has fewer - and so on.

This is quite apart from the point that the rest of the Top 10 was probably better in Federer's peak period than it is today.

In the modern game, from the early 1970s onwards, no dominant player has been as good at 30 as he was at 25. It is fantasy to imagine Federer is a miraculous exception.

+1

rickcastle
09-29-2011, 04:14 PM
In the modern game, from the early 1970s onwards, no dominant player has been as good at 30 as he was at 25. It is fantasy to imagine Federer is a miraculous exception.

Exactly. It's baffling to me how many people actually claim that Federer did not decline with a straight face.

EddieNero
09-29-2011, 04:21 PM
Some people deny Fed's decline to magnify the hype around Nole's achievements this year and Nadal's 2008 & 2010 seasons.
Any reasonable spectator has readily noticed Roger's game deteriorated significantly in every domain beside serve.

Sophocles
09-29-2011, 04:22 PM
Federer in both the eras was reaching the semis. he was reaching then he is reaching even now. Now he is having problems with the Top 2 3,i.e Nadal and Djokovic whereas he was hammering the likes of Hewitt,Roddick,Davydenko,Tommy Haas and Sargis sargsian.

Its within the Top 3 4 he is having problems now. How much you guys bloat over it the fact remains the Top 4 were way better than 2004-2008.

Er actually we're talking about a guy who in the space of SIX SEASONS failed to get to the semis precisely ONCE, & who in the subsequent TWO SEASONS has failed to reach the semis THREE TIMES. What does that tell you, Sherlock? Even without factoring in a worse Top 10.

Sophocles
09-29-2011, 04:23 PM
Some people deny Fed's decline to magnify the hype around Nole's achievements this year and Nadal's 2008 & 2010 seasons.
Any reasonable spectator has readily noticed Roger's game deteriorated significantly in every domain beside serve.

This year especially I've noticed it in the serve as well.

dodo
09-29-2011, 04:23 PM
Exactly. It's baffling to me how many people actually claim that Federer did not decline with a straight face.
to be fair, making outlandish claims with a straight face is not exactly uncommon on MTF. some of the clownier regulars specialize in producing dozens of these pearls every day.

TopSpin08
09-29-2011, 04:26 PM
Exactly. (Arguably Nadull on hard courts too.)

Unsurprisingly, Rafatards & Djokertards - & I distinguish between tards & fans here - fail to realise their whole argument about better competition begs the question. Why exactly are Nadal & Djokovic presumed to be better opponents than Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Agassi, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Moya, Ferrero, Coria, Gaudio, Haas, Grosjean, Henman, pre-2008 Nadal & Djoker? Precisely because present-day Nadal & Djoker can be relied on to beat Federer most times, whereas those others - with the signal exception of Nadal on clay - could NOT. But if Federer has indeed declined, then their present success against Federer can be explained by that, & we can surmise that peak Federer would have continued making them look like the others.

The truth is that Federer has declined, Djoker has got significantly better, or at least more consistent & confident & fitter, & Nadal has improved on hard courts, while arguably declining on clay. Their level of play suggests they would have beaten peak Fed more often than the likes of Roddick & Hewitt managed, but to do that in slams you need only 1 more win than zero - and if you put ANY great player's successors at No. 1 into his peak era, you will get the same result. 2011 Nole in 2008-11 & Nadal would have had fewer slams. Peak Fed in the '90s, Sampras has fewer slams. Peak Sampras in the '80s, Lendl has fewer - and so on.

This is quite apart from the point that the rest of the Top 10 was probably better in Federer's peak period than it is today.

In the modern game, from the early 1970s onwards, no dominant player has been as good at 30 as he was at 25. It is fantasy to imagine Federer is a miraculous exception.

Nice post. Agree with this.

Johnny Groove
09-29-2011, 04:33 PM
In addition to what Sophocles has said:

Federer is simply not as quick as he was at his peak. Peakerer was ALWAYS in position to hit EVERY shot, always, for 4 fucking years.

Nowadays, Olderer is constantly a step or so slower, a little bit out of position, leading to more shanks than usual. Example, when Roger runs to the forehand, his footspeed isn't as fast to get there and he gets there a bit late at times. Then, his first recovery step back to the center isn't as quick as it was a few years ago, and he is then late getting to the backhand, and so on and so on.

I've also in the last 2 years or so see Roger see a ball, take a few steps to run around the bh to hit the forehand, and then mid shot, finds out he is not fast enough with his footwork, then decided to side step and hit a backhand instead. His declining physicality has led to him needing to change his strategies. I've seen him get noticeably tired and fatigued in that AO match SF vs. Djokovic and also in the 3rd and 4th sets of the USO match SF vs. Djokovic, both this year. But you'd expect a 24 year old to have more endurance than a 30 year old.

Now, Federer is still good enough with his serve and overall game and mentality that EVEN IN HIS DECLINE, he is still only losing to one of the all time greats in Nadal and 2011-ovic, playing one of the all time greatest seasons.

Where will Djokovic and Nadal be at 30?

Shinoj
09-29-2011, 04:42 PM
Er actually we're talking about a guy who in the space of SIX SEASONS failed to get to the semis precisely ONCE, & who in the subsequent TWO SEASONS has failed to reach the semis THREE TIMES. What does that tell you, Sherlock? Even without factoring in a worse Top 10.

In 2011, he has reached semis or better Four times out of four. I assume after having it all figured out would have to say something about it.

Going by the moots of your flock, Top 10 has declined, Roger Federer has declined, Only Nadal and Djokovic know how to grip a tennis racket then. Give a suggestion then to Stop ATP and let only Nadal,Djokovic play.

Mechlan
09-29-2011, 04:50 PM
match was basically decided with one point, with which the momentum (confidence) shifted. how on earth does that have little to do with belief, escapes me.

that match was won purely on confidence in the deciding moment. 2 mp down, novak swallowed the defeat, digested it, and went all out on that return, at what point fed crumbled mentally while novak raised and thus won the match.

only way how you could possibly claim that prime fed would've won this match would be to say he would've closed it in 3 sets, and that would make sense if he wasnt playing novak. thats cause novak by his own admission, raised his game in the 3rd. imo it would've been incredibly difficult even for prime fed to keep his exact tempo from first 2 sets (and 1st set was very close). in the end, even in prime vs prime it would boil down to confidence in deciding moment, and there its a coin toss between these two.

I'm saying that in his prime against an opponent as dangerous as Djokovic, Federer doesn't go away for 2 sets like he did. It's certainly possible that Federer would have had a dip in the 3rd, but the way he played that 4th set was beyond disastrous. So yes, I'm saying that it's quite unlikely that prime Federer would have been put into a 5th set situation at all. Now if you add the fact that prime Federer would have been on a crazy confidence high, then it's entirely possible he wins that fifth set. Idle speculation really.

Maybe you won't really understand this until Djokovic starts moving worse and his consistency starts to suck compared to now. But I guarantee you will see Djokovic play worse in the next 4 years, and the "next" great player fans will be telling you that Djokovic isn't worse, the new guy is just that much better. Come back to me then and tell me if you really believe players don't decline at 30 compared to 25. :)

Vida
09-29-2011, 05:08 PM
I'm saying that in his prime against an opponent as dangerous as Djokovic, Federer doesn't go away for 2 sets like he did. It's certainly possible that Federer would have had a dip in the 3rd, but the way he played that 4th set was beyond disastrous. So yes, I'm saying that it's quite unlikely that prime Federer would have been put into a 5th set situation at all. Now if you add the fact that prime Federer would have been on a crazy confidence high, then it's entirely possible he wins that fifth set. Idle speculation really.

Maybe you won't really understand this until Djokovic starts moving worse and his consistency starts to suck compared to now. But I guarantee you will see Djokovic play worse in the next 4 years, and the "next" great player fans will be telling you that Djokovic isn't worse, the new guy is just that much better. Come back to me then and tell me if you really believe players don't decline at 30 compared to 25. :)

I didnt say fed hasnt declined at all, I said the decline is overrated. what I meant of course was those people who present it as he is a completely different player are wrong. thats all I basically said.

but to go back what you said in the underline part, its speculation sure, Im pretty convinced these two in their prime (say they are the same age), it would've been 50 50 on hard courts. what novak has, none of the guys fed played really have so the matchup is entirely fictional. I mean all we can rely is our imagination - youd have to factor things that, maybe, fed wouldnt've been as confident playing novak as he was when he played, say roddick. also, what you've underestimated a bit is that in this match, which was for first two sets prime-like from fed, first set was extremely close - no BP at all, and only ended in TB. most of the points were 3 hits max and serves were clicking. so as to speculate, what if in their imaginary prim-vs-prime match, its fed who loses the first set in a TB? what happens then? point is: put prime djoker with prime fed, and the story line changes dramatically. at least on hard courts, but tbh novak was so good overall this year (his peak till this point), Im not sure fed would have a breeze on other surfaces either.

Sophocles
09-29-2011, 05:33 PM
In 2011, he has reached semis or better Four times out of four. I assume after having it all figured out would have to say something about it.

Going by the moots of your flock, Top 10 has declined, Roger Federer has declined, Only Nadal and Djokovic know how to grip a tennis racket then. Give a suggestion then to Stop ATP and let only Nadal,Djokovic play.

a) You are factually wrong - he lost in the quarters at Wimbledon, remember?

b) I give up.

Sophocles
09-29-2011, 05:35 PM
put prime djoker with prime fed, and the story line changes dramatically. at least on hard courts, but tbh novak was so good overall this year (his peak till this point), Im not sure fed would have a breeze on other surfaces either.

I think most objective people would agree peak Fed would have had a bigger challenge from Djoker on hard courts than he had from anybody else. Throughout their careers, both during & after Fed's peak & before & during Djoker's peak, most of their matches have come down to a few points here & there.

nsidhan
09-29-2011, 06:09 PM
And for those who are saying Federer is not playing as well against the lower Ranked guys, take a look at this vide. Us Open against Monaco.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOLrAYaLZ4Q

Er...that Monaco match was played at like 1am in the morning or something. And Monaco himself said the late start completely threw his game off and he SUCKED.

But I am glad you agreed Federer played well that match.

barahmasa
09-29-2011, 06:45 PM
present fed has better serve, better return of serve, much better backhand, better slice, better all round game, more number of options, better dropshot......i was not at all surprised when he said he is now a much better player than what he was 5 years ago......

:haha:
:facepalm:

This also goes to Vida...
(Yeah, of course Roger didn't decline so much - you must have problems with your sight, it's the rest of the field that got so much stronger. Berdych, Soderling, Tsonga, Monfils & co have become beasts :rolleyes: )

barahmasa
09-29-2011, 06:54 PM
In addition to what Sophocles has said:

Federer is simply not as quick as he was at his peak. Peakerer was ALWAYS in position to hit EVERY shot, always, for 4 fucking years.

Nowadays, Olderer is constantly a step or so slower, a little bit out of position, leading to more shanks than usual. Example, when Roger runs to the forehand, his footspeed isn't as fast to get there and he gets there a bit late at times. Then, his first recovery step back to the center isn't as quick as it was a few years ago, and he is then late getting to the backhand, and so on and so on.

I've also in the last 2 years or so see Roger see a ball, take a few steps to run around the bh to hit the forehand, and then mid shot, finds out he is not fast enough with his footwork, then decided to side step and hit a backhand instead. His declining physicality has led to him needing to change his strategies. I've seen him get noticeably tired and fatigued in that AO match SF vs. Djokovic and also in the 3rd and 4th sets of the USO match SF vs. Djokovic, both this year. But you'd expect a 24 year old to have more endurance than a 30 year old.

Now, Federer is still good enough with his serve and overall game and mentality that EVEN IN HIS DECLINE, he is still only losing to one of the all time greats in Nadal and 2011-ovic, playing one of the all time greatest seasons.

Where will Djokovic and Nadal be at 30?

+1 for the entire post!
tards, pay attention to the bolded part ;)

Anyway, guys we're beeing on an impossible mission here, you can't reason with brainless/blinded people :confused:

Start da Game
09-29-2011, 06:55 PM
fart da brain making sure to cruise to the ACC title :sport: clever kid

nobody tops you, laussanne loose.....you are an epitome of arse dumbery......

nsidhan
09-29-2011, 07:00 PM
davydenko held a bunch of set points for a 2 sets to 1 lead over him in 2006 AO and choked like a rat.....who is tommy haas? he took him to 5 sets in the same tournament.....

get over the myth that he peaked in 2004 and clowned it up after 2006.....no great player clowns it up at 24, 25 unless he's been at the top and winning consistently for 7 or 8 years already.....peak, non peak is all relative......

present fed has better serve, better return of serve, much better backhand, better slice, better all round game, more number of options, better dropshot......i was not at all surprised when he said he is now a much better player than what he was 5 years ago......

EPIC FAIL post! :worship:

...except for that drop shot statement.

When you say "better" you mean his declined state of tennis is better for his opponents I presume.

Yes Federer did say his tennis was better compared to 5 yrs ago. What else you do expect an OLD man to say? He is OLD and delusional.

Start da Game
09-29-2011, 07:00 PM
good inputs by shinoj......agreed fully......

Mechlan
09-29-2011, 07:09 PM
I didnt say fed hasnt declined at all, I said the decline is overrated. what I meant of course was those people who present it as he is a completely different player are wrong. thats all I basically said.

but to go back what you said in the underline part, its speculation sure, Im pretty convinced these two in their prime (say they are the same age), it would've been 50 50 on hard courts. what novak has, none of the guys fed played really have so the matchup is entirely fictional. I mean all we can rely is our imagination - youd have to factor things that, maybe, fed wouldnt've been as confident playing novak as he was when he played, say roddick. also, what you've underestimated a bit is that in this match, which was for first two sets prime-like from fed, first set was extremely close - no BP at all, and only ended in TB. most of the points were 3 hits max and serves were clicking. so as to speculate, what if in their imaginary prim-vs-prime match, its fed who loses the first set in a TB? what happens then? point is: put prime djoker with prime fed, and the story line changes dramatically. at least on hard courts, but tbh novak was so good overall this year (his peak till this point), Im not sure fed would have a breeze on other surfaces either.

I can partially agree with this. Federer's decline is overrated, depends on who's doing the rating I guess. :) I think Djokovic would have proved to be quite a challenge even to prime Federer. Would have come down to a handful of points because they've both got really good hold games.

Singularity
09-29-2011, 07:10 PM
I guess when Federer is 37, and playing in challengers, we'll just have to accept that everyone else just got so much better. He should probably share the secret of how to escape ageing though; he could make a fortune.

Start da Game
09-29-2011, 07:18 PM
EPIC FAIL post! :worship:

...except for that drop shot statement.

When you say "better" you mean his declined state of tennis is better for his opponents I presume.

Yes Federer did say his tennis was better compared to 5 yrs ago. What else you do expect an OLD man to say? He is OLD and delusional.

what is fail is the blind fedlovers like you....."peakerer" was butt kicked by baby rafa in dubai, montecarlo, rome, french open and barely won in wimbledon in 2006.....just imagine what 2008 nadal would do to that woman......

fedclown's peak started in 2007 when he was getting pushed by rafa and djokovic, that is when he realized he needed to bring in some improvements......he never had a regular dropshot before 2009, a shot which he particularly developed for the clay season that year after nadal bombarded him off the ground in the french final 2008, check my sig for the scoreline......

only morons would believe that he started declining in 2007......ask me why.....a top player who is deemed to be an all time great does not start declining at 25, only retards would buy that argument......he is no boris becker to have become mentally and physically spent by 25, 26......he is certainly no chang who got overwhelmed by the occasions after the 89 victory and expectations.......

fedclown started winning slams regularly in 2004 when he was almost 23......one feels like puking when blind breed fedlovers cry he started declining just two years later......

Castafiore
09-29-2011, 07:20 PM
Where will Djokovic and Nadal be at 30?
:shrug:

For me, it's too soon to dismiss Djokovic at the age of 30 like you seem to be doing. I can't see Nadal at top level at that age to be honest, but he started winning at top level sooner than Federer and Djokovic so comparing players at a certain age without looking at the bigger picture is a bit pointless.

Egreen
09-29-2011, 07:22 PM
Where will Djokovic and Nadal be at 30?

Retired.:shrug:

Johnny Groove
09-29-2011, 07:28 PM
what is fail is the blind fedlovers like you....."peakerer" was butt kicked by baby rafa in dubai, montecarlo, rome, french open and barely won in wimbledon in 2006.....just imagine what 2008 nadal would do to that woman......

fedclown's peak started in 2007 when he was getting pushed by rafa and djokovic, that is when he realized he needed to bring in some improvements......he never had a regular dropshot before 2009, a shot which he particularly developed for the clay season that year after nadal bombarded him off the ground in the french final 2008, check my sig for the scoreline......

only morons would believe that he started declining in 2007......ask me why.....a top player who is deemed to be an all time great does not start declining at 25, only retards would buy that argument......he is no boris becker to have become mentally and physically spent by 25, 26......he is certainly no chang who got overwhelmed by the occasions after the 89 victory and expectations.......

fedclown started winning slams regularly in 2004 when he was almost 23......one feels like puking when blind breed fedlovers cry he started declining just two years later......

I don't even know where to start.

So I will just laugh.

:lol:

:shrug:

For me, it's too soon to dismiss Djokovic at the age of 30 like you seem to be doing. I can't see Nadal at top level at that age to be honest, but he started winning at top level sooner than Federer and Djokovic so comparing players at a certain age without looking at the bigger picture is a bit pointless.

I'm just saying that Fed's style of game is more conducive for a longer career than Nadal or Djokovic's.

Castafiore
09-29-2011, 07:30 PM
I'm just saying that Fed's style of game is more conducive for a longer career than Nadal or Djokovic's.
You don't just look at the length of top careers by comparing calendar dates, though.

Where are most players at the age Nadal started winning slams? That's the flipside of your line of thinking.

I mean, Federer's playing style is more economic and he's a good scheduler, yes. But you're cutting corners in your argument. :p

Start da Game
09-29-2011, 07:35 PM
QF, SF and F opponents of fed and djokovic in years 2006 and 2011

federer

AO 2006 :spit:
davydenko
kiefer
baghdatis

wimbledon 2006
ancic
bjorkman
nadal

us open 2006 :haha:
james blake
davydenko
rodduck

djokovic

AO 2011
berdych
federer
murray

wimbledon 2011
tomic
tsonga
nadal

us open 2011
tipsarevic
federer
nadal

now you can continue dreaming about "peakerer".....

Singularity
09-29-2011, 07:36 PM
Yeah, this shot didn't exist before 2009:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQNX2OC_ttk

MatchFederer
09-29-2011, 07:38 PM
Considerably different. Just been doing some extensive editing of Fed at Wimbledon and you can see his evolution as a player and how some of his tendencies changed throughout his career. I'm not sure which version is peak (probably 2006) but he's certainly 'different'...

in 03 and 04 his sense of improvisation was wild (and it came off ridiculously often). He became more refined during 2005 and 2006 and added more top-spin to his game. Nowadays his style is placid compared to yesteryear, though he's still a fine shot-maker. From 03 - 06 especially, his backhand passing shot was a significant weapons. He's really lost his passing shots some, and it's due to slightly inferior movement. Also, maybe he's less driven now and lacks some of the fearlessness he used to have.

Start da Game
09-29-2011, 07:51 PM
Yeah, this shot didn't exist before 2009:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQNX2OC_ttk

first read and then reply......i din't say he never had it before, i said he never had a regular dropshot......even soderling pulled off a few good ones once in a while but that does not make him a drop shot specialist......

Singularity
09-29-2011, 07:54 PM
If you choose not to play the shot on a regular basis, then it stops becoming a regular shot.

nsidhan
09-29-2011, 07:56 PM
fedclown's peak started in 2007 when he was getting pushed by rafa and djokovic,......

So his peak started when he started losing a lot more? :shrug:

Looks like your posts are starting to "decline" as well. ;)

Egreen
09-29-2011, 07:59 PM
I'm just saying that Fed's style of game is more conducive for a longer career than Nadal or Djokovic's.

Ditto.

You don't just look at the length of top careers by comparing calendar dates, though.

Where are most players at the age Nadal started winning slams? That's the flipside of your line of thinking.

I mean, Federer's playing style is more economic and he's a good scheduler, yes. But you're cutting corners in your argument. :p

You also look at playing styles. Djokovic's game is more defensive and physical than Federer's, his slam winning years will be fewer than Federer's.

Djokovic will certainly not win slams for 8 consecutive years like Federer did.

nsidhan
09-29-2011, 08:01 PM
fedclown started winning slams regularly in 2004 when he was almost 23......one feels like puking when blind breed fedlovers cry he started declining just two years later......

Nadal is 25...his game is on the decline. His performance in 2011 has been despicable. Yes he reached 3 Slam finals. But he was playing much better in 2008 or even 2010.

Start da Game
09-29-2011, 08:05 PM
yes, we can close our eyes and choose not to fly......when we open our eyes and choose to fly, we fly......got it.....

i will let djokovic fans take care of the blind breed dumb nuts for a while......this is their season after all......just one last thing though......2006 fed would never have won the french had he been 2006 fed even in 2009, d pot would have smoked him......

nsidhan
09-29-2011, 08:11 PM
yes, we can close our eyes and choose not to fly......when we open our eyes and choose to fly, we fly......got it.....

i will let djokovic fans take care of the blind breed dumb nuts for a while......this is their season after all......just one last thing though......2006 fed would never have won the french had he been 2006 fed even in 2009, d pot would have smoked him......

Didn't 2009 Fed(< 2006 Fed) beat d pot in the FO'09 semis? :shrug:

Singularity
09-29-2011, 08:18 PM
yes, we can close our eyes and choose not to fly......when we open our eyes and choose to fly, we fly......got it.....
Another way of looking at it: you have wings, but you choose not to use them much, because you dislike flying. Federer never liked the drop shot, so didn't use it much, until he needed an edge on clay, because the other parts of his game had declined.

But feel free to find examples of the terrible drop shots Federer use to hit, before he became a drop shot master in the 2008 off season.

dodo
09-29-2011, 08:38 PM
Tard da Fail pretty adamant about his ludicrous misconceptions. Shocker, right?

Start da Game
09-29-2011, 08:43 PM
not liking a drop shot and not being able to make it one of your weapons are two different things......what examples and why should i dig? it's just like asking to show his fail attempts at serve and volley when he rarely attempted serve and volley......

dodo
09-29-2011, 08:46 PM
not liking a drop shot and not being able to make it one of your weapons are two different things......what examples and why should i dig? it's just like asking to show his fail attempts at serve and volley when he rarely attempted serve and volley......

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

habibko
09-29-2011, 08:49 PM
Now he is having problems with the Top 2 3,i.e Nadal and Djokovic whereas he was hammering the likes of Hewitt,Roddick,Davydenko,Tommy Haas and Sargis sargsian.

he was hammering Nadal and Djokovic as well back then on his preferred surfaces, Wimbledon 2006, 2007 and USO 2007 final among other matches, heck even for a couple years afterwards he was schooling Djokovic in USO 2008 and 2009 (for some reason Noletrolls always act like those two matches never happened), until he declined he was handling them just fine

but no this has nothing to do with Federer's level of play and all about Djokovic and Nadal stepping it up :rolleyes:

habibko
09-29-2011, 08:55 PM
fedclown's peak started in 2007

:haha: :haha: :haha:

need I say more?

Everko
09-29-2011, 08:57 PM
he was hammering Nadal and Djokovic as well back then on his preferred surfaces, Wimbledon 2006, 2007 and USO 2007 final among other matches, heck even for a couple years afterwards he was schooling Djokovic in USO 2008 and 2009 (for some reason Noletrolls always act like those two matches never happened), until he declined he was handling them just fine

but no this has nothing to do with Federer's level of play and all about Djokovic and Nadal stepping it up :rolleyes:

Federer has never "hammering" Nadal.

Start da Game
09-29-2011, 09:00 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEysBocPWOE



that is one tournament in like 9 seasons......doesn't even qualify for being called a rarity......

Singularity
09-29-2011, 09:03 PM
not liking a drop shot and not being able to make it one of your weapons are two different things
You're perfectly right. Which is why you can't infer from the fact that Federer didn't like to use the drop shot, that it wasn't a weapon at his disposal.

habibko
09-29-2011, 09:06 PM
Federer has never "hammering" Nadal.

we could argue about what hammering mean for a while, or just watch a video like this to get rid of your "never"

AR7do5BFgzA

this is what peak Federer is all about

Everko
09-29-2011, 09:11 PM
Start da Game's iconic signature beautifully illustrates Nadal's peak.

Start da Game
09-29-2011, 09:18 PM
You're perfectly right. Which is why you can't infer from the fact that Federer didn't like to use the drop shot, that it wasn't a weapon at his disposal.

nope......it's easier to say he had it at his disposal but did not like use it, than actually use it if he had it......if he really had a regular drop shot, he would have used it a lot against rafa, which he din't(couldn't)......i remember very well he specifically added the drop shot to his repertoire in 2009 to do something about his nemesis nadal on clay and it actually paid off against the likes of del potro and soderling......d pot even with tiredness would have smoked fed otherwise......

DrJules
09-29-2011, 09:22 PM
In many ways tennis is highly dependent on two elements; a racket skill and shot making ability and physical speed, fitness and flexibility.

Over the years racket skills and shot making skills can enhance with practice and experience which possibly has increased in the case of Federer. Hence, his comment of playing better.

Where Federer has declined is physically which is evident in several ways. Speed and balance which are key to movement are not quite so good resulting in Federer reaching the ball later and not being as balanced when hitting the ball. Overall this has resulted in Federer executing his shot making less clinically and with more unforced errors which are greater in number than between 2004 to 2007. On a day to day basis the body does not recover as quickly and will ache slighty more after a tough match as the player ages resulting in more physically poor days as the tough matches accumulate in their effect. Federer certainly reacts slower to fast serves and does not return serve as well these days as he did in 2004 to 2007.

Additionally motivation can reduce as a player marries and has children with their life focus being less on tennis and having a more rounded view on life to include tennis and family.

In summation Federer has declined a little in ability to perform as a player than in the period 2004 to 2007.

dodo
09-29-2011, 10:45 PM
The best thing about these two clowns? They never give up. Their relentlessness and determination is unparalleled. No delusion too great, no opinion too ill conceived. A wholehearted and spirited effort, a shining beacon for everyone.
Start da Game and Everko --- I salute you!

dodo
09-29-2011, 10:48 PM
we could argue about what hammering mean for a while, or just watch a video like this to get rid of your "never"

AR7do5BFgzA

this is what peak Federer is all about
This video clearly never happened. I mean, serve and volley on the very first point, please. It is well established that this sort of thing just isnt part of Federer's skill set.

emotion
09-30-2011, 01:37 AM
Nadal admits in his book that he and Federer were even off clay, you know?

shiaben
09-30-2011, 01:57 AM
1. Peak Federer had 15-20 aces per slam match. (Current Federer has probably a range of 5-10 aces per slam match).
2. Peak Federer can get a lot of points down the line. (Current Federer is lucky to find opportunities to get a few one handers down the line).
3. Peak Federer had a life long insurance on stamina, endurance, and superior footwork. (Current Federer can still manage to throw in his 2 cents for superior footwork i.e. see the match against Cilic, but his stamina and endurance, are questionable against Nadal or Djokovic).

So at the moment. I'm happy that Federer's backhand at Wimbledon and USO, weren't shanking away points like he was against Djokovic at the AO. When he works hard enough, he can get that one handed backhand to become a sturdy defensive tool, to serve as a buffer to wait awhile enough until the opponent hits one mediocre shot, then switch to his killer forehand.

His return of service is fair. It is fair enough to keep him alive in the sets.

His serve is getting better.

He just has to be vigilant enough to avoid getting into long ridiculous rallies with Djokovic or Nadal, or otherwise by the 4th or 5th sets he'll end up throwing the matches away due to fatigue or instability.

Haelfix
09-30-2011, 03:30 AM
Obviously the movement is different. That's not a little thing either. Movement is everything in modern tennis, and tiny differences are amplified ten fold. It's the difference between Nadal winning 3 slams and Djokovic winning 3 slams.

Federer had lost a half step at the end of 2007 and especially by 2008 (allowing Nadal to surpass him at Wimbledon), and he's lost another step since then. The result is that he can't take the offensive as much (harder to cut the angles off), and his defense is less sturdy than before.

Its still good obviously by tour standards, but then not by his peak standards. It also makes him hit more UFEs, and messes with his confidence during critical moments of a match. It's not a coincidence that so called 'mental strength' seems to be stronger the younger and fitter a player is. (see Lleyton Hewitt, Federer, Nadal, Sampras etc etc)

Other than that, his game perse is different. Different strengths really. He didn't use to have a dropshot, and I feel like his serve is better now (at least since 07). However he used to hit his forehand much better (there was more zip on it, and it was more accurate), and his returns were much crisper and consistent. Ditto with the backhand down the line, and the volleys.

The overall impression, is that he was a more imposing physical presence during his prime, and now he gets by more on his wiles and game management skills. Obviously the peak version is better, but its not like he sucks now either, and he can definitely show glimmers of his old self for parts of a match (although of course its hard to mantain).

Shinoj
09-30-2011, 04:51 AM
we could argue about what hammering mean for a while, or just watch a video like this to get rid of your "never"

AR7do5BFgzA

this is what peak Federer is all about


He always played catch up to Nadal. It shows in the H2H also. What you have posted it was an aberration. What we can post is Nadal "Hammering" Federer Videos, and it will be almost double the videos you can post.

Topspindoctor
09-30-2011, 05:13 AM
As much as fanbois continually praise Fed's "effortless tennis", his stamina sucks these days. Can't even play 3 sets at high level as demonstrated by his loses to Clownga and Nole this year.

Shinoj
09-30-2011, 05:32 AM
His Effortless brand of tennis was good enough for Hewitt,Roddick and Davydenko, but not enough for the intensity of Nole and Nadal. His only option is to match their intensity, because hey we are not playing Ballet routines here.

Mechlan
09-30-2011, 09:15 AM
His Effortless brand of tennis was good enough for Hewitt,Roddick and Davydenko, but not enough for the intensity of Nole and Nadal. His only option is to match their intensity, because hey we are not playing Ballet routines here.

:facepalm: It's like we get new ACC contenders every day.

paseo
09-30-2011, 09:30 AM
Wanna know the difference? Just use your eyes.

bokehlicious
09-30-2011, 09:38 AM
:facepalm: It's like we get new ACC contenders every day.

Objectively ACC should be packed with fed haters (aka rafatards/noletrolls), so many clowns there, but since that is mtfers voting we'll most probably have another final between 2 random fed fans...

Sophocles
09-30-2011, 10:26 AM
what is fail is the blind fedlovers like you....."peakerer" was butt kicked by baby rafa in dubai, montecarlo, rome, french open and barely won in wimbledon in 2006.....just imagine what 2008 nadal would do to that woman......

fedclown's peak started in 2007 when he was getting pushed by rafa and djokovic, that is when he realized he needed to bring in some improvements......he never had a regular dropshot before 2009, a shot which he particularly developed for the clay season that year after nadal bombarded him off the ground in the french final 2008, check my sig for the scoreline......

only morons would believe that he started declining in 2007......ask me why.....a top player who is deemed to be an all time great does not start declining at 25, only retards would buy that argument......he is no boris becker to have become mentally and physically spent by 25, 26......he is certainly no chang who got overwhelmed by the occasions after the 89 victory and expectations.......

fedclown started winning slams regularly in 2004 when he was almost 23......one feels like puking when blind breed fedlovers cry he started declining just two years later......

You really don't realise just how embarrassingly thick you are, do you, Start Da Brain?

Where do we start?

1. "Peakerer" was butt-kicked by Rafa blah blah. Is this supposed to prove that current Fed is better than Peakerer? Because it's a bit difficult to see how when current Fed is butt-kicked by Rafa too, even on surfaces other than clay, which he was precisely TWICE during his peak.

2. "barely won in Wimbledon 2006" - what? 6-0,7-6,6-7,6-3 is barely winning? I mean, yeah, it's a match that got a bit tight in the middle, but the outcome was never in doubt. Rather like a Rafa-Fed R.G. final reversed.

3. Fed's peak started in 2007 (the year he started losing to Canas & Volandri & turkey Gonzales), proved by his greater use of the drop-shot in 2009. Erm, right. Yeah. Ignoring that non sequitur, I think it's pretty obvious to the non-brain-dead members of the forum that incorporating new shots into your armoury is quite likely to be a response to decreasing effectiveness of your standard game.

4. Top players don't start declining at 25. Riiiggghhhht. Leaving aside the fact Federer turned 26 in 2007, I think you'll find Bjorn Borg, Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, & Pete Sampras all begging to differ. Or was the Sampras dumped out of Wimbledon by baby Fed - peak Sampras? Was it the competition getting so much better (mmm, much the same competition, incidentally, dominated by peak Federer) from 1998 onwards that prevented Sampras from ever again winning 2 slams in a season? Must've been.

5. 2007 is 2 years later than 2004. Erm, I hate to break it to you, but - you're a fucking moron.

dodo
09-30-2011, 11:15 AM
facts and reason are but minor inconveniences to be brushed aside for a true hater.
your post will be completely debunked by the fact that you failed to properly close that [i] tag.

Sophocles
09-30-2011, 11:36 AM
facts and reason are but minor inconveniences to be brushed aside for a true hater.
your post will be completely debunked by the fact that you failed to properly close that [i] tag.

Edited. ;)

Fujee
09-30-2011, 12:26 PM
You have to be a fool to think Federer is better now than he was during those 5 years 2003-07. He's considerably slower now and has less bite in his shots. It's sad, but there is the standard trajectory of a pro tennis player.

I also, fucking hate trolls.

Shinoj
09-30-2011, 01:58 PM
Even Federer has said time and again his game has not declined. just accept Nole and Nadal has got his Fondue ass on a leash and move on.

Ibracadabra
09-30-2011, 02:01 PM
Consistency.

Start da Game
09-30-2011, 03:03 PM
You really don't realise just how embarrassingly thick you are, do you, Start Da Brain?

Where do we start?

1. "Peakerer" was butt-kicked by Rafa blah blah. Is this supposed to prove that current Fed is better than Peakerer? Because it's a bit difficult to see how when current Fed is butt-kicked by Rafa too, even on surfaces other than clay, which he was precisely TWICE during his peak.

2. "barely won in Wimbledon 2006" - what? 6-0,7-6,6-7,6-3 is barely winning? I mean, yeah, it's a match that got a bit tight in the middle, but the outcome was never in doubt. Rather like a Rafa-Fed R.G. final reversed.

3. Fed's peak started in 2007 (the year he started losing to Canas & Volandri & turkey Gonzales), proved by his greater use of the drop-shot in 2009. Erm, right. Yeah. Ignoring that non sequitur, I think it's pretty obvious to the non-brain-dead members of the forum that incorporating new shots into your armoury is quite likely to be a response to decreasing effectiveness of your standard game.

4. Top players don't start declining at 25. Riiiggghhhht. Leaving aside the fact Federer turned 26 in 2007, I think you'll find Bjorn Borg, Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, & Pete Sampras all begging to differ. Or was the Sampras dumped out of Wimbledon by baby Fed - peak Sampras? Was it the competition getting so much better (mmm, much the same competition, incidentally, dominated by peak Federer) from 1998 onwards that prevented Sampras from ever again winning 2 slams in a season? Must've been.

5. 2007 is 2 years later than 2004. Erm, I hate to break it to you, but - you're a fucking moron.

chillax old bozo......know that you just don't get it and learn to take it easy......

Start da Game
09-30-2011, 03:05 PM
Even Federer has said time and again his game has not declined. just accept Nole and Nadal has got his Fondue ass on a leash and move on.

this......it is funny and retarded when their player himself suggested so and yet they are not ready to believe it......

dodo
09-30-2011, 03:06 PM
chillax old bozo......know that you just don't get it and learn to take it easy......
well, im convinced. the argument is settled.

Sophocles
09-30-2011, 03:31 PM
chillax old bozo......know that you just don't get it and learn to take it easy......

That isn't bad advice. But given the intemperance of the posting I was replying to, you need to take it yourself as well.

habibko
09-30-2011, 04:02 PM
He always played catch up to Nadal. It shows in the H2H also. What you have posted it was an aberration. What we can post is Nadal "Hammering" Federer Videos, and it will be almost double the videos you can post.

I was responding to the person who said there was "never" a hammering by Federer on Nadal, I didn't claim more than that so don't get your panties in a twist

Vida
09-30-2011, 05:12 PM
so does the decline of federer mean novaks year is less worthy?

rocketassist
09-30-2011, 05:22 PM
His Effortless brand of tennis was good enough for Hewitt,Roddick and Davydenko, but not enough for the intensity of Nole and Nadal. His only option is to match their intensity, because hey we are not playing Ballet routines here.

I'm sure Hewitt, Roddick and Davydenko wish they had gotten a post-peak Fed back in 04 and 05 like Novak has this year.

Vida
09-30-2011, 05:25 PM
I'm sure Hewitt, Roddick and Davydenko wish they had gotten a post-peak Fed back in 04 and 05 like Novak has this year.

of for sure. I can already see davydenko wining 3 slams and losing just three times by october.

Shinoj
09-30-2011, 05:39 PM
I was responding to the person who said there was "never" a hammering by Federer on Nadal, I didn't claim more than that so don't get your panties in a twist

Smarty you claimed Federer in his peak was hammering all over Nadal.. The only one who has got his panty out of control is you? By the way you could get whiplashes for using such language. Dont you think

nsidhan
09-30-2011, 05:41 PM
of for sure. I can already see davydenko wining 3 slams and losing just three times by october.

Look Novak-tard, Djokovic has had a stellar year winning 3 slams and losing only 3 times. Not his fault if his opponents weren't at their "peaks" or choked or whatever. All his wins were legitimate. So kudos to him for that.

This discussion is purely looking at Fed's style of play and comparing it over the years.

nsidhan
09-30-2011, 05:42 PM
Smarty you claimed Federer in his peak was hammering all over Nadal.. The only one who has got his panty out of control is you? By the way you could get whiplashes for using such language. Dont you think

Racist comment alert!

...sad when someone has to resort to that to get his "point" across.

Vida
09-30-2011, 05:49 PM
Look Novak-tard, Djokovic has had a stellar year winning 3 slams and losing only 3 times. Not his fault if his opponents weren't at their "peaks" or choked or whatever. All his wins were legitimate. So kudos to him for that.

This discussion is purely looking at Fed's style of play and comparing it over the years.

I fully agree.

just wanted to get a confirmation (preferably from a fed fan).

you DO agree than, that before Fed declined, the fact he played whats commonly known as 'bunch of gutless no-show chokers' doesnt make HIS wins in that period any less worthy?

Sophocles
09-30-2011, 05:50 PM
so does the decline of federer mean novaks year is less worthy?

No. Not at all.

nsidhan
09-30-2011, 05:55 PM
Look Novak-tard, Djokovic has had a stellar year winning 3 slams and losing only 3 times. Not his fault if his opponents weren't at their "peaks" or choked or whatever. All his wins were legitimate. So kudos to him for that.

This discussion is purely looking at Fed's style of play and comparing it over the years.

I fully agree.

just wanted to get a confirmation (preferably from a fed fan).

you DO agree than, that before Fed declined, the fact he played whats commonly known as 'bunch of gutless no-show chokers' doesnt make HIS wins in that period any less worthy?

No where have I mentioned that :cuckoo:. Fed wins during his peak years were legitimate. Same as Novak's in 2011.

Vida
09-30-2011, 05:59 PM
thats it. the matter has been cleared up and all reasons why this thread has lasted for 17 pages have ceased to exist.

the decline thing wasnt that complicated in the first place.

habibko
09-30-2011, 08:02 PM
Smarty you claimed Federer in his peak was hammering all over Nadal.. The only one who has got his panty out of control is you? By the way you could get whiplashes for using such language. Dont you think

I gave specific examples of matches where he hammered Nadal and Djokovic during his prime because you said he was hammering the likes of Hewitt, Roddick, Davydenko, Haas and you left out the fact that he was beating those same players he is losing more often against after he declined, I didn't exclude the fact that he also lost against them at times so your response to my point was irrelevant, just like the whiplashes comment