Is Fed done ? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Is Fed done ?

Pages : [1] 2 3 4

warfreakbix
07-30-2002, 11:22 AM
After blasting Marat to win Hamburg, one game and out on Roland Garros, Wimbledon and Toronto. Any opinions?:confused:

Daniel
07-30-2002, 12:34 PM
poor cute Roger :sad: :sad:

TheBoiledEgg
07-30-2002, 12:45 PM
he should have lost to Marat, he feels gulity

come on Roger wake up or you will never make Shanghai

Mrs. B
07-30-2002, 12:57 PM
it's mind boggling. He's so talented, got all the shots in the book, he's beaten the top players, had a great win in Hamburg...and now his 3rd first round loss. (he went out in the 2nd round in Gstaad). RG and Wimbledon was a shocker.
Hope he'll recover in time for the US Open.

C'mon, Roger!!!!!!!!:bounce:

Dissident
07-30-2002, 02:12 PM
Definitely mental. He plays well enough during the majority of the match, but when it comes to the decision time, he plays crap. This match vs Canas was a clear example of that. If the player he faces hangs on and waits, Roger takes care of burrying (spell??) himself.
Very sad, I just hope he can turn that around.

TennisHack
07-30-2002, 03:36 PM
Once again, hitman beats me to the punch :)

Thanks to the rain delay, I got to see Rogi's match. To me, he just didn't look comfortable out there on court, and wasn't putting much into his play. Compare this to last year's Roland Garros (or even Wimbledon), where he at least seemed excited to be on court and he was trying his best. Yesterday, he looked out of place and depressed, like he'd rather be anywhere else than on the court.

Which means his problem is in his mind. I'm wondering if there's pressure on him to perform to his potential all the time, every time (he's only human, after all). He's said himself he's a bit of a dreamer by nature, so perhaps he's at that point where he's wondering if he wants to commit to doing his best in tennis, with the fishbowl life that comes with it.

Luckily for him, he has the talent to keep him in the Top 20 while he makes up his mind.

Dissident
07-30-2002, 06:43 PM
People say great minds think alike... :p
Your point about his attitude is also very interesting. He was indeed looking kinda down during the whole match. I thought I was just being too hard on him, though. If someone else noticed, heck, Im even more worried now. This just sucks. :sad:

TennisHack
08-05-2002, 07:12 PM
This is getting ridiculous, now. I'm sorry to say I'm not surprised Rogi crashed out of another first round match.

Does anyone expect him to do well at the Open now?!

Layla
08-05-2002, 07:19 PM
Originally posted by TennisHack
This is getting ridiculous, now. I'm sorry to say I'm not surprised Rogi crashed out of another first round match.

Does anyone expect him to do well at the Open now?!

Not really. It's such a shame. :( He played so perfectly against Marat in Hamburg and now he can't win a match to save his life. But since we have gotten so used to him losing in the first round, maybe it's time for him to surprise us again. Who knows.

TheBoiledEgg
08-05-2002, 07:20 PM
Miroslava should stop hanging around with him and get back to playing on the tour again

she isn't letting him focus

christinaE
08-05-2002, 07:36 PM
If you beat Sampras at Wimbledon, you must live with the curse...... :)

Perhaps this loss today can partly be blamed by him still being in shock by the news of his previous coach's untimely death. :(

Leo7
08-05-2002, 08:25 PM
he's definitely got some major mental problems right now. since his Hamburg win, maybe all the high expectations and pressure are getting to him?! Roger has become of the biggest head-cases on tour, along with Marat of course!

TheBoiledEgg
08-05-2002, 08:31 PM
if only potato was a head case as well

Lily
08-05-2002, 08:39 PM
why does it always happen to the NICE ones??

i think Rogi is very depressed right now and there's no telling when he'll come out of it. With the news of his former coach and string of 1st round losses, it seems that it will be a while until the 'ol Rogi is back. We just have to be patient (at least thats what i keep telling myself) I saw that match with Canas last week and even when he was hitting winners there was no spark from him. Very sad.

Martin
08-06-2002, 12:10 AM
There's no doubt that today his mind probably wasn't on court, because of what happened to his previous coach.

Before that though, I've got no idea what has happened to him, I think that match against Arazi at Roland Garros really shocked him, he was going into it in such great form. I just hope he comes out of this form soon and gets back how he was playing before Roland Garros because when he's playing as well as that, there aren't too many better than him.

Daniel
08-06-2002, 12:17 AM
:sad: :sad:

Mrs. B
08-06-2002, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by TheBoiledEgg
Miroslava should stop hanging around with him and get back to playing on the tour again

she isn't letting him focus

You could be right about that. I saw his first round doubles match in Gstaad and she was sitting there in the corner, but not really watching the game, more like daydreaming, she kept using her cellphone and texting. But no enthusiasm of being there. And that match him & Kratochvil could have easily won, they lost the first set, & they were leading 6-3 in that tie break, mind you; they won the second set, then blew the 3rd set away. On home ground too.

His psyche is so fragile at the moment and i'm really concerned about his game. He is too good to fade away at this early age...

:confused:

SheepleBuster
09-11-2007, 02:50 AM
What In the world has happened to our Roger? Yeah. he won his 12th slam. Great. Good for him. But the manner that he won it was purely worrisome. He has played passive this year all year except maybe at the AO. He tamely lost the French Final. Almost handed Rafa the Wimbledon, and was a bit lucky to go unscathed @ the U.S. Open. We all know he has the talent to dominate these wanna bes but it seems after parting with Tony Roche, Roger has gotten worse ( I thought that would be impossible after blaming Tony for making Roger play passive for quite some time). You can't tell me Davydenko of all people should give Roger all that trouble. What about Lopez? who?!! If I remember, Rafa dropped a bagel on Lopez... Roger has gotten better with his serve. No doubt about that. But I think his return game has gotten worse. He was barely getting into Djoko's games and even Lopez's games at the U.S. Open! What's going on!

ReturnWinner
09-11-2007, 02:57 AM
:retard:

connectolove
09-11-2007, 02:58 AM
I think that you are panicking. Roger does not have to kill himself to win anymore, that´s it.

SheepleBuster
09-11-2007, 03:00 AM
He is playing too passive. Come on. He was allowing Djoko play him around just like he did against Canas and Volandri and who's the other guy :)

Allure
09-11-2007, 03:15 AM
Because he knows he doesn't have to play great to win.

turkjey5
09-11-2007, 03:39 AM
Prior to the final, I thought he had gotten over the hump. I thought he played very well against Lopez and then his victory over Roddick was as close to tennis perfection as it gets. Could the old Rog be coming back? No, he's back to his passivity. I thinks it's a combo of nerves and lack of confidence. But maybe there is no problem. Throughout his career he has often played to his opponent's level and done just enough to win. It's not what the fan who loves what he is capable of wants to see but it still goes down as a W.

hra87
09-11-2007, 03:44 AM
It does look like he's gradually declining. It's not unexpected. He still has his usual flashes of brilliance, he'll still win many more slams, be number 1 for a long while still. It's not like he's playing horribly, just, on average, a bit worse than he was last year. No big deal.

R.Federer
09-11-2007, 03:57 AM
What the hell is indeed wrong with him. Only 3 slams this year. The decline is evident.

nkhera1
09-11-2007, 03:59 AM
Did you honestly expect him to keep up his 2006 level forever? The guy loses like 2 sets the whole tournament and you still find something to complain about. I'd be worried once he starts losing consistently(or at all) in the Grand Slams.

FedFan_2007
09-11-2007, 04:15 AM
Actually you can make an argument for 2006 be peakiest peaky peak Fed. 92-5, 16/17 in the final, 12-4 in finals, Gah!

FedFan_2007
09-11-2007, 04:16 AM
But it doesn't matter anyway - Borg is GOAT because of slam winning %.

nkhera1
09-11-2007, 04:18 AM
Actually you can make an argument for 2006 be peakiest peaky peak Fed. 92-5, 16/17 in the final, 12-4 in finals, Gah!

Thats the year I meant to refer to. I don't know why I said 2004 (though that certainly wasn't a bad year either). Thanks for the catch.

megadeth
09-11-2007, 04:33 AM
sigh.. some fed fans just can't be satisfied... :rolleyes:

Mimi
09-11-2007, 04:36 AM
you are really too greedy, 12 slams for just 26 years, many of the players has yet to win just one :rolleyes:

FedFan_2007
09-11-2007, 05:07 AM
I'm greedy. I want Fed to win em all. CYGS + Gold Medal = Golden Slam... Yummy Price Fed.

bokehlicious
09-11-2007, 06:20 AM
Fed is getting nervous, obviously chasing History is a hell of a pressure...

Rogiman
09-11-2007, 06:49 AM
His ground game has declined and he makes up for it with an improved serve and mental toughness, similar in a way to the process Sampras had to go through as he grew older.

Or Levy
09-11-2007, 06:50 AM
I think it's the weight of the expectations that is getting hard for him to endure, there's only so far a sport psychologist can carry you, his calmness is legendery, but his admission of not eating and upset stomach - he wasn't kidding.
It's really there, the guy is probably a nervous wreck - he's just doing a great job hiding it.

I'm not sure even HE expected to eventually beat Nole in 3.

Hopefully, now that he got his slams, Rafa resting his knees and Nole and Roddick probably sulking and licking their wounds, he'll play more freely in the next tournaments.

Allure
09-11-2007, 06:57 AM
When you get older, your body starts to let go. Nothing you can do.

nikita13
09-11-2007, 07:05 AM
[QUOTE=Or Levy;6009280]
It's really there, the guy is probably a nervous wreck - he's just doing a great job hiding it.
QUOTE]

That's what is so great about champions like Roger: He never gives his opponents any insight that he might be human like they are, until after he's beaten them.

Apemant
09-11-2007, 07:59 AM
When you get older, your body starts to let go. Nothing you can do.

26 years is not old enough for the body to start declining noticeably. It can only be mental fatigue; too much winning. Saturation with success; hard to maintain focus and motivation. It's as if it all comes 'too easy' for him, and he starts calculating. Why risk an injury playing his ass off if a mediocre display is enough? Why chase that ball at 3-3 40-0, esp. if you were wrong-footed and it would require a sudden and explosive change of direction? Nadal doesn't ask that question, he just chases them all down. But Federer does it only in important moments. Sometimes such an approach puts him into trouble but so far he was able to get away with it most of the time.

We'll see what happens in the future.

ilovemarat
09-11-2007, 08:02 AM
It's not like he was getting worse, I think. It's just the others (and younger players) are getting better.

Myrre
09-11-2007, 08:07 AM
IMHO he doesn't look as fit as before. He's got a 1-pack and he was actually breathing hard after some of the rallies with Djokovic....

dragons112
09-11-2007, 08:54 AM
He only does what he needs too. He conserves enegry for long matches.

Or, its because he has not had a coach since the aussie open

dragons112
09-11-2007, 08:55 AM
You cant say hes not as fit did anyone see the hamburg final on clay now that was fitness

dragons112
09-11-2007, 08:55 AM
You cant say hes not as fit did anyone see the hamburg final on clay now that was fitness

Kuhne
09-11-2007, 09:13 AM
In any match, against anyone, being down 7 set points and defending them and go on to win the match. this is what would happen.

If Sampras did it. people would say Oh wow, he used his serve to get out, his god given gift, what a heart!
If Rafa did it. people would say, oh wow, what defense and focus from Rafa in those pivital moments!
If Safin did it. people would say, it's nice to have goten the old safin in those crucial points.
If Nalbandian did it. people would say, up until that point where he was down all those set points, he started showing what he can really do.
If Roddick did it. people would say, see, in those points its where you can see Jimmy Connors has had a positive effect on his confidence.
If Djokovic did it. people would say, we tribute that comeback to his great all around game and the fact he has no weakneses.
If Davidenko did it. people would say, he has so much potential, he showed us what he can do with his great speed and made the comeback
If Gasquet did it. people would say, for that little brief moment when he was down 7 set points, in those points he showed what he trully is capable off.
If a random good player does it, (Ferrer, Gonzalez, Ferrero, Moya etc) people would write random threads saying "nice comeback "xxx"!! "stupid happy face here"

Oh no.. but if Federer does it, OMFGGGGGGGGGG DJOKOVIC IS A JOKE! NO WAIT I AM SMART, HE IS NOW JOKEOVIC! OR WAIT, EVEN BETTER, CHOKEOVIC!! hahaha!! wow, Federer won that slam because of pure luck!!
yet they forgot he mentioned he served as good as sampras, defended as good as nadal and was mentaly as strong as any player has ever been on the important points, he is stronger mentaly than Djokovic will ever be.

Will he ever get real credit? No.. and it is all his fault, he has spoiled us so much with his unheard off success that we now expect him to win every slam (Except the French Open) with his eyes closed dancing around the court owning his opponent easily, without needing to use cheap weapons like his great serve.. so when he is playing bad and strugling and has to rely in his good old serve and mental superiority (thing sampras relied on ALL HIS LIFE and is considered the best ever) he gets bashed and credit is removed from his great achievement.

Eden
09-11-2007, 09:26 AM
Will he ever get real credit? No.. and it is all his fault, he has spoiled us so much with his unheard off success that we now expect him to win every slam (Except the French Open) with his eyes closed dancing around the court owning his opponent easily, without needing to use cheap weapons like his great serve.. so when he is playing bad and strugling and has to rely in his good old serve and mental superiority (thing sampras relied on ALL HIS LIFE and is considered the best ever) he gets bashed and credit is removed from his great achievement.

Well said :yeah:

Nobody should forget that Nadal and Djokovic are the No. 2 and 3 players in the world and therefore one can expect that they give Roger a good match whenever they meet.

There is a lot of pressure on Rogers shoulders as he is breaking records tournament by tournament. That's the price he has to pay for being so dominant.

Lets wait and see how he will play in the indoor season without the pressure of defending a GS title and his No. 1 position. Hopefully he is a bit more relaxed now.

Monteque
09-11-2007, 09:32 AM
It's no matter if he is getting worse as long as he always gets 2 or more slams in a year.

All great players must be face situation like this. There are always young and fresh players for each era. And it isnt easy to beat them. Murray, Nadal, Gasquet, and Nole are some examples and i believe there are some upcoming players in the future that can be a major problem for Federer.

Don't expect him to always win or playing beautifully. 2005 is good example, he was playing very good but just 2 GSs came into bag. And i do believe that 2008 Fed will break all the good records out there: GS titles(15 maybe), AMS titles(18), Wimbledon titles(6 streak), and USO titles.:)

Or Levy
09-11-2007, 09:39 AM
For next year, I'll settle for Wimby, the French, and the gold olympic medal - I mean, no one ever deserved olympic gold more.

I think Roger would settle for that as well.

dragons112
09-11-2007, 09:50 AM
I think we all analyse him too much lol

kobulingam
09-11-2007, 09:56 AM
Where did the FH pace go?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Rab-dBOm7ns

Apemant
09-11-2007, 10:28 AM
Where did the FH pace go?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Rab-dBOm7ns

Hmm actually I don't see anything in that video that I didn't see recently, for example vs. Roddick in QF. But yes, he doesn't do it often anymore.


BTW, YouTube so much sucks for tennis videos. The ball is barely visible. Damn flash.

kobulingam
09-11-2007, 10:39 AM
You saw monster forehands against Roddick? Fed never hit really fast paced forehands in that match (no need to against Roddick).

EDIT: I agree about the lack of visibility for the tennis ball in the video. I think it's partly the stupid GREEN surface's fault (glad they switched to blue eventually).

thesupreme
09-11-2007, 10:50 AM
What In the world has happened to our Roger? Yeah. he won his 12th slam. Great. Good for him. But the manner that he won it was purely worrisome. He has played passive this year all year except maybe at the AO. He tamely lost the French Final. Almost handed Rafa the Wimbledon, and was a bit lucky to go unscathed @ the U.S. Open. We all know he has the talent to dominate these wanna bes but it seems after parting with Tony Roche, Roger has gotten worse ( I thought that would be impossible after blaming Tony for making Roger play passive for quite some time). You can't tell me Davydenko of all people should give Roger all that trouble. What about Lopez? who?!! If I remember, Rafa dropped a bagel on Lopez... Roger has gotten better with his serve. No doubt about that. But I think his return game has gotten worse. He was barely getting into Djoko's games and even Lopez's games at the U.S. Open! What's going on!

Seriously man, what gives? This sh*t is tired with a capital T and whiny to say the least. So he didn’t bagel people as much you like, so his serve isn’t godly because percentages tell you so, so his play is a tad ‘lethargic’ and his opponents get 'chances', who cares? The sooner you realise that he’s a HUMAN BEING the better. Our heroes are not immortal, they're not always 'spartans' (word to RFK) & expecting them to be absolutely grade A every year sets yourself up for disappointment. You can beat people in other way than blasting them of court like making THEM do all the work...

Man I need me a time machine to get me back to the pre internet era…some ‘tennis fans’ fell the f*ck off with all these stupid expectations & crybaby over analysis…man up & be real for god sakes

HE WON THE US OPEN :rolleyes:

MasturB
09-11-2007, 10:50 AM
I think Fed strategically hits the ball all around the court now to tire his opponents.

The one thing i've noticed is he's just too lazy to run around a backhand and hit a forehand these days. If you watch the 5th set against Nadal at Wimbledon, he was really trying to end the match hitting run around forehands. All he's doing these days is slicing the ball back making his opponent put pace on the ball. His forehands have alot more topspin than they do velocity. Maybe he's holding back and just trying to make his opponent run more.

I do notice that his backhand isn't as much of a power weapon as it was in '04-'06. I remember he could hit winners at will with it in those days, now the only winners he really gets from it are passing shots.

Adler
09-11-2007, 10:58 AM
he has spoiled us so much with his unheard off success that we now expect him to win every slam (Except the French Open) with his eyes closed dancing around the court owning his opponent easily, without needing to use cheap weapons like his great serve.. so when he is playing bad and strugling and has to rely in his good old serve and mental superiority (thing sampras relied on ALL HIS LIFE and is considered the best ever) he gets bashed and credit is removed from his great achievement.
It;'s practically what I wanted to write :)

thesupreme
09-11-2007, 11:01 AM
^^MasterB - he is using that slice all the time, dude should of used that tactic AGES ago, messes up opponents strategies whilst at the same time conserving energy for later sets. Worked nice at this tourner and did Federer look tired at any point? NO....because he's already one step ahead of what a lot of you guys reckon he should be doing, eff the flashy win, its all about the win in the first place....

t0x
09-11-2007, 11:06 AM
Federer is counter-punching a little too much latley - he doesn't boss the points like he used to. His FH just doesn't seem like a dominating shot. I'm a fan of Federer's game and I find it disappointing and less good to watch (despite picking up #12).

His return game has also dropped a bit, but he's getting older so that's to be expected I guess.

MasturB
09-11-2007, 11:08 AM
^^MasterB - he is using that slice all the time, dude should of used that tactic AGES ago, messes up opponents strategies whilst at the same time conserving energy for later sets. Worked nice at this tourner and did Federer look tired at any point? NO....because he's already one step ahead of what a lot of you guys reckon he should be doing, eff the flashy win, its all about the win in the first place....

I think it's good he likes to conserve his energy for later in the match. THe problem at Roland Garros was he got away from his slice backhand and was trying to hit topspin backhands at Nadal all day.

I don't understand some people. If he's not dominating the match then they say the quality isn't that good and that his opponents are just mentally weak. If he is dominating hte match then alot of them say the match sucked because all he did was dominate. The matches he's playing these days where he's not breaking his opponents as often should be called exciting and close, yet some will just continue to crap out retarded theories.

I agree it was FUN watching him dominate and toy with opponents all day with winners and passing shots. But if you're not a Federer fan, how do you NOT like all the close matches he's been playing lately?

MasturB
09-11-2007, 11:09 AM
Federer is counter-punching a little too much latley - he doesn't boss the points like he used to. His FH just doesn't seem like a dominating shot. I'm a fan of Federer's game and I find it disappointing and less good to watch (despite picking up #12).

His return game has also dropped a bit, but he's getting older so that's to be expected I guess.

As we've pointed out, he's not running around hitting forehands lately. Maybe it's due to lazy footwork, or maybe it's due to just conserving for later in the match where he can pt the exclamation mark and throw them fastballs they weren't seeing earlier.

His forehand still is the best shot in hte game IMO, but he doesn't hit fireballs all the time anymore.

WF4EVER
09-11-2007, 11:13 AM
What the hell is indeed wrong with him. Only 3 slams this year. The decline is evident.

Seriously.

Apparently people fail to realise we're talking about a human being here; he is not machine. And even in his failings he's still the best out there.

He can only live up to people's expectations for so long.


12 slams later and we're acting like Feds should still be producing masterclass tennis. It's impossible that anyone should maintain that kind of level in tennis for four years or more. Yet, in his old, declining days, he's on the cusp of making history.

Give the guy a break. What's happening to him happens to every normal person.

thesupreme
09-11-2007, 11:17 AM
I think it's good he likes to conserve his energy for later in the match. THe problem at Roland Garros was he got away from his slice backhand and was trying to hit topspin backhands at Nadal all day.

I don't understand some people. If he's not dominating the match then they say the quality isn't that good and that his opponents are just mentally weak. If he is dominating hte match then alot of them say the match sucked because all he did was dominate. The matches he's playing these days where he's not breaking his opponents as often should be called exciting and close, yet some will just continue to crap out retarded theories.

I agree it was FUN watching him dominate and toy with opponents all day with winners and passing shots. But if you're not a Federer fan, how do you NOT like all the close matches he's been playing lately?

EXACTLY....couldnt have put it better myself :angel:

Cat123
09-11-2007, 11:17 AM
He knows when he needs to play and when he doesn't, he never tires himself out because of it. He kicks ass on important points when other players crumble and gets the job done in the end.

Unfortunately (Because I love Rafa and Nole!) I think Federer's going tp dominate for a long time to come.

MasturB
09-11-2007, 11:25 AM
I think it's also good to point out that Federer's service game has been improving. He's served is way out of trouble ALOT lately (like someone we used to know)

I think the way he's serving lately mixes in just right with his transition to becoming more conservative during matches. Get cheap points that don't make you tired, then when you do engage in rallies, slice it back and make them tired so you can unleash forehands on them later.

nobama
09-11-2007, 11:30 AM
Seriously.

Apparently people fail to realise we're talking about a human being here; he is not machine. And even in his failings he's still the best out there.

He can only live up to people's expectations for so long.


12 slams later and we're acting like Feds should still be producing masterclass tennis. It's impossible that anyone should maintain that kind of level in tennis for four years or more. Yet, in his old, declining days, he's on the cusp of making history.

Give the guy a break. What's happening to him happens to every normal person.:worship:

DDrago2
09-11-2007, 11:52 AM
I suppose he knows how to do what he does best - winning tennis matches.

His seemingly more passive strategies this year probably have to do with energy management and his long-term plans.
But have you noticed that when he attacks the net, he does that with more authority than ever? I actualy think he never was the more complete player. This year he reached his full potential, now let's see for how long he will be able to exibit it

Forehander
09-11-2007, 12:16 PM
next year federer will win the australian open, french open, wimbledon then US open i think

jonas
09-11-2007, 08:32 PM
But it doesn't matter anyway - Borg is GOAT because of slam winning %.

Copy that! And, almost more important, completely dominant on BOTH clay (6 FO) and grass (5 Wimby). Will never happen again... :wavey:

bokehlicious
09-11-2007, 08:34 PM
completely dominant on BOTH clay (6 FO) and grass (5 Wimby). Will never happen again... :wavey:

Nadal will have a shot at it... :o

SheepleBuster
09-11-2007, 08:34 PM
Clay is faster than Grass now. Please!!

Apemant
09-11-2007, 09:30 PM
You saw monster forehands against Roddick? Fed never hit really fast paced forehands in that match (no need to against Roddick).

EDIT: I agree about the lack of visibility for the tennis ball in the video. I think it's partly the stupid GREEN surface's fault (glad they switched to blue eventually).

Ok, there was this one really big inside-out forehand in that video, but I was referring to the general 'feel' of the rally. It looked pretty much similar to what I've seen in USO this year. Maybe he doesn't hit really monstrous FHs all that often, but like you said yourself, there's hardly a need for that. It's an overkill, it might just result in an UE, and a safer shot is also likely to be a winner, from a position like that, when he's 3 meters inside the court.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
02-07-2010, 12:59 PM
:rolleyes:

yuri27
02-07-2010, 01:08 PM
Epic thread :lol::lol:

Jaz
02-07-2010, 01:08 PM
8 years later and he is the "Greatest of All Time"....

What a turnaround...

gaitare
02-07-2010, 01:12 PM
Miroslava should stop hanging around with him and get back to playing on the tour again

she isn't letting him focus

+1

Demiloy
02-07-2010, 01:55 PM
You could be right about that. I saw his first round doubles match in Gstaad and she was sitting there in the corner, but not really watching the game, more like daydreaming, she kept using her cellphone and texting. But no enthusiasm of being there. And that match him & Kratochvil could have easily won, they lost the first set, & they were leading 6-3 in that tie break, mind you; they won the second set, then blew the 3rd set away. On home ground too.

His psyche is so fragile at the moment and i'm really concerned about his game. He is too good to fade away at this early age...

:confused:

Wow...

yuri27
02-07-2010, 02:52 PM
At least,this thread is a good lesson for those who write off highly talented players too quickly(Gasquet comes to mind).

Bobby
02-07-2010, 03:00 PM
At least,this thread is a good lesson for those who write off highly talented players too quickly(Gasquet comes to mind).

No, this shows that it's pointless to bump threads that were written 7 1/2 years ago. This speculation probably was justified back then. We don't know what will happen 10 years from now, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss current events.

Singularity
02-07-2010, 03:09 PM
Besides, the people in this thread didn't write him off.

JimmyV
02-07-2010, 03:16 PM
Shocking how the people back then actually discussed tennis and made good points. They didn't just post LOL MUGSZZZZ every other thread and make barely coherent statements.

abraxas21
02-07-2010, 03:16 PM
No, this shows that it's pointless to bump threads that were written 7 1/2 years ago. This speculation probably was justified back then. We don't know what will happen 10 years from now, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss current events.

Exactly. Besides, no-one was writting him off.

'I'VE lost all confidence lately. I feel like I'm missing energy. I started the year well — I made the top 10 for the first time and won Hamburg, but after that it's mainly been downhill, and I really can't explain why." — Roger Federer, August 22, 2002, after he lost to Nicolas Massu in the first round at Long Island, his fourth opening-round loss in five tournaments.

Who would have thought that almost 8 years later he would be regarded as the GOAT.

Renaud
02-07-2010, 06:37 PM
At least,this thread is a good lesson for those who write off highly talented players too quickly(Gasquet comes to mind).

Hi Richie21 :wavey:

Andi-M
02-07-2010, 07:49 PM
great bump :yeah:

Just goes to show how things can change.

Vida
02-07-2010, 08:29 PM
No, this shows that it's pointless to bump threads that were written 7 1/2 years ago. This speculation probably was justified back then. We don't know what will happen 10 years from now, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss current events.

quite right. just another way of fed-worshipers gloating.

mistercrabs
02-07-2010, 10:07 PM
quite right. just another way of fed-worshipers gloating.

Check out the thread where someone says Federer will always have problems beating Hewitt, back when their head to head was 7-2 to Hewitt. This was right before Roger went on a 15 match winning streak, losing about 5 sets in all those matches. I think it's worth reminding ourselves occasionally how Roger Federer went from being Andy Murray to being God.

Sjengster
02-07-2010, 10:13 PM
Shocking how the people back then actually discussed tennis and made good points. They didn't just post LOL MUGSZZZZ every other thread and make barely coherent statements.

That's what happens when there are a lot fewer posters around and a much more even, unpredictable set of results to talk about. I fear that if I were to start a thread discussing the best and worst headbands on tour now it would be deemed far too frivolous by those who want to engage in the usual slanging matches.

Black Adam
02-08-2010, 11:00 AM
Back then this was a coherent forum. Not the dump it became starting 2005. All the crap arrived starting 2005.

bokehlicious
02-08-2010, 11:03 AM
Yeah TGS, all the crap started when Fed felt like dominating and Duck started sucking big time... :awww: :hug:

nobama
02-08-2010, 11:43 AM
Yeah TGS, all the crap started when Fed felt like dominating and Duck started sucking big time... :awww: :hug:Didn't Nadal win 11 titles in 2005 and beat Fed in RG SF. Yeah makes sense that's when the crap started. :D

serveandvolley80
02-09-2010, 08:17 AM
Shocking how the people back then actually discussed tennis and made good points. They didn't just post LOL MUGSZZZZ every other thread and make barely coherent statements.

The more popular the net got, the more retards started going into chat rooms and forums, it got crowded with stupidity.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
02-09-2010, 01:41 PM
its quite apparent the nostalgia tards who hate on Feds success (but pretend like they dont) cant handle the domination of the fed express

personally, being a tennis connoisseur- i see right through you

i predicted federer would win Madrid 2009 when everyone had written him off (you can check talk tennis warehouse)

and then after that performance i knew Roger was destined to win RG that year- Rafa is lucky he didn't meet Roger in the final

Wimbledon was in the bag, roddick was valiant as ever- he is a true champion and a great ambassador for american tennis- however, nothing could stop the irresistible force that was Roger Federer

Everko
05-17-2010, 02:47 PM
Roger has fallern victim to Nadal again. He's probably become used to it though

tangerine_dream
05-17-2010, 03:51 PM
Didn't Nadal win 11 titles in 2005 and beat Fed in RG SF. Yeah makes sense that's when the crap started. :D
GM is missing you in the Madrid F: Nadal def. Federer 6-4, 7-6(5) thread. :awww:

2003
07-17-2010, 10:22 AM
There are several cogent arguments, I believe, that age has probably not been as influentual to the decline of Roger Federer as many people seem to believe.

First, Monofed. Roger Federer was at the twilight of his peak years, or simply beyond it when he contracted Mononucleosis (or Glandular Fever). He was 26 and a half going on 27 when this affected him. It is unknown how long the residual effects lasted for, but it is assumed he suffered from it to an extent for 3 grand slams. He played through it, and the worst of it was at the 2008 Australian Open. But he still managed to make the semis there, he took apart Tomas Byrditch in a clinical but close straight sets win. He lost a tight match to Djokovic who took every chance. Then at the French Open he reached the final without making too many hiccups. Was embarassed by a red hot Nadal. Made the Wimbledon final without dropping a set, then put on a clinic in the final with Nadal.

Whats the point of mentioning the mono you say? Well, this is it. He was 27 for all intents and purposes. This declining Federer has been 28/29. He looks in good physical shape generally at this moment. Would a 27 yearold suffering from Mononucleosis really be able to put on better performances than an incarnation of himself only 1 - 1 and a half years older? Unlikely in my opinion. Yes players like Byrditch have stepped up since 08, but maybe thats got more to do with it than Federers age? Other players arent afraid to step up anymore and take those 50/50 chances. Because thats what the matches he has been losing have come down to. Players taking those chances that maybe they would have pushed on in the past. Rogerer Federer aquitted himself very well when he was suffering from Mono. A 28 yearold with a clean bill of health should be able to put up better performances than a 27 yearold with Mono.

Why don't people talk about other players declines? What about Murray and Djokovics declines? They are only in their early to mid twenties. Whats their excuse? Why on earth do people think Federer is some sort of super human that has to be able to always bring his best 100% of the time until stopped by the natural ageing process? No other tennis player in history has done that, they have all had dark periods. Some when they were younger, some when older. Age has little to do with it.

There are other players who have risen at Federers age. Andre Agassi. What about Tommy Haas? He had a vintage season in 2009 and aquitted himself well in 2010 AO in his early thirties. He is not as nimble as Roger Federer. Federer is of course not as good as he used to be, he is a touch slower. But he never relied on his speed of foot heavily in the past to beat opponents.

The purpose of this thread is not to offer a reason for the decline, temporary or permanent we will have to see, I will leave that up to others. The purpose is to cast some doubt on this general consensus that exists that age is the reason Roger Federer has declined. I think it has played a part, but a small one. Maybe 20%.

But I will offer this food for thought. Del Potro, Soderling and Byrditch. The last three players to beat Roger Federer at Grand Slams. What do they all have in common? It is not that they are all similar game styles. It is not that they are all tall etc, the usual redundant arguements people give.

The thing they all have in common is this. They are all in the primes of their careers, playing the best tennis they will probably ever play! They were always under achievers, who had chances to make matches against Roger Federer in the past but lacked the clutch play, fitness and mental fortitude to go for the juggernaut. Enact that, and add Roger Federer being a bit off, and you have your answer, pure and simple.

The jury is still out on Del Potro obviously, as he was only 20 when he beat Federer for the US Open. But it's tough to imagine him playing any better than he has, he will hit the same level I believe.

LEGENDOFTENNIS
07-17-2010, 11:17 AM
Federer at his peak would have beaten these players who've beaten him recently at GS's. He loved to play against those type of players but now he hasn't got the immensely quick reactions/legs as he once had (although he is still v.fast).

Forehander
07-17-2010, 11:29 AM
You spelt Berdych incorrectly.

NJ88
07-17-2010, 11:31 AM
I don't think it's primarily age. I think it's possible that his new family could contribute to his decline. He maybe doesn't have the competetive passion for tennis right now due to other things being currently important. He seems like a big family guy to me, so I wouldn't be surprised if that was a factor.

2003
07-17-2010, 11:43 AM
Federer at his peak would have beaten these players who've beaten him recently at GS's. He loved to play against those type of players but now he hasn't got the immensely quick reactions/legs as he once had (although he is still v.fast).

That may be so, but the problem is those players are better now, and Federer isn't at his peak, so we will never know.

Even Federer at his peak did get put down by Marat Safin in 2005 AO.

I think those players potentially could have beaten Federer at his peak. They would have had to play better than they did though. On grass probably not so, but on hardcourt or clay yes.

Remember, Robin Soderling beat Nadal when he was pretty much in his prime. I don't buy the injury bullsheit, Nadal was fine just two days before when he pistol whipped Lleyton Hewitt.

Whats the point? Well, Nadal being beaten at RG was still a bigger suprise than peak Federer being beaten in a grand slam by anyone not named Nadal. I know apart from Safin it never really happened, but even if it had it wouldn't have had the same suprise factor Soderling had last year.

Dougie
07-17-2010, 11:58 AM
Obviously age itself is not relevant in Federerīs decline. Itīs those little things that aging brings with it that eventually start playing a part in a playerīs level.

- Movement becomes slower, reactions slow a bit. You say Federer never relied primarily on his speed. But thatīs not entirely true. One of his biggest weapons has been his inside out forehand. Nowadays heīs just not able to run around his backhand enough, at least not enough to hit his forehand from a comfortable position. As a result, his backhand is exploited by other players.

- At his age, heīs already played so many years at the top, that itīs inevitable other players start to figure his game out, start to find his weaknesses and use them. This process is made faster by Federerīs loss of speed. This in turn causes other playerīs confidence to rise even more.

-Kids. A man with two babies sleeps less than a man with no kids. Itīs as simple as that. Being a father also brings other priorities and issues with it. Thatīs life, but doesnīt help his tennis.

No one stays at the top forever, and even if itīs not totally about age, it plays a big part, no question about it.

Oh, and the mono-reason is all bs. Has nothing to do with Fedīs current level, or decline.

nalbyfan
07-17-2010, 12:01 PM
Fed can't blame mono to excuse his bad results all the time...this is not a serious illness, usually it's very short, 15 days / 1 month...so mono has nothing to do with his stepback

LEGENDOFTENNIS
07-17-2010, 01:30 PM
That may be so, but the problem is those players are better now, and Federer isn't at his peak, so we will never know.

Even Federer at his peak did get put down by Marat Safin in 2005 AO.

I think those players potentially could have beaten Federer at his peak. They would have had to play better than they did though. On grass probably not so, but on hardcourt or clay yes.

Remember, Robin Soderling beat Nadal when he was pretty much in his prime. I don't buy the injury bullsheit, Nadal was fine just two days before when he pistol whipped Lleyton Hewitt.

Whats the point? Well, Nadal being beaten at RG was still a bigger suprise than peak Federer being beaten in a grand slam by anyone not named Nadal. I know apart from Safin it never really happened, but even if it had it wouldn't have had the same suprise factor Soderling had last year.

Federers absolute peak I consider to be that stretch from Usopen/aus07 or 06 if you think im being too constricted. Although that was an excellent Federer he beat and all credit to Safin played an awesome match to beat an in-form Federer. I don't think Nadal was at 100% imo, why did he skip Wimbledon then? Don't get me wrong Im not the biggest Nadal fan but I gotta say he wasn't fully fit for that match and Soderling had to play excellent to win.

brent-o
07-17-2010, 02:21 PM
I would say though age has played a part in it, it's seemed to me in his recent losses that his game has just seemed outdated, eclipsed by this new game of power (sounds like I'm describing the WTA huh?). But anyway it just seems like the beautiful way Federer constructs a point is becoming less effective. For instance, it's not like his slice has lost any bite, but his old standby of slicing most returns is not working because these guys can send that back with sufficient power. Federer's game is not purely about power so it's often awkward when he tries to be extremely aggressive, shanking balls and such. He'd much rather work his way into a point, as he usually does with his slice, than slam the first ball off the return. Though Fed had dealt with these guys handily at his peak, I just think his age plus the evolution of the game are making it difficult for him.

MrChopin
07-17-2010, 02:23 PM
That may be so, but the problem is those players are better now, and Federer isn't at his peak, so we will never know.

Even Federer at his peak did get put down by Marat Safin in 2005 AO.

Being at your "peak" does not mean you play your absolute best every time you step on court.

Dougie
07-17-2010, 02:30 PM
Being at your "peak" does not mean you play your absolute best every time you step on court.

Spot on. And Safin was no mug, either.

thrust
07-17-2010, 03:26 PM
Obviously age itself is not relevant in Federerīs decline. Itīs those little things that aging brings with it that eventually start playing a part in a playerīs level.

- Movement becomes slower, reactions slow a bit. You say Federer never relied primarily on his speed. But thatīs not entirely true. One of his biggest weapons has been his inside out forehand. Nowadays heīs just not able to run around his backhand enough, at least not enough to hit his forehand from a comfortable position. As a result, his backhand is exploited by other players.

- At his age, heīs already played so many years at the top, that itīs inevitable other players start to figure his game out, start to find his weaknesses and use them. This process is made faster by Federerīs loss of speed. This in turn causes other playerīs confidence to rise even more.

-Kids. A man with two babies sleeps less than a man with no kids. Itīs as simple as that. Being a father also brings other priorities and issues with it. Thatīs life, but doesnīt help his tennis.

No one stays at the top forever, and even if itīs not totally about age, it plays a big part, no question about it.

Oh, and the mono-reason is all bs. Has nothing to do with Fedīs current level, or decline.

EXCELLENT POST! After 27 or 28, most tennis players start to decline. Some more than others, but it happens to all the greats too. Overall, Fed has been very lucky when it comes to serious injuries throughout his career. Much of it is due to his basic physical condition but mostly due, I think, to his style of play.

Sunset of Age
07-17-2010, 03:45 PM
EXCELLENT POST! After 27 or 28, most tennis players start to decline. Some more than others, but it happens to all the greats too. Overall, Fed has been very lucky when it comes to serious injuries throughout his career. Much of it is due to his basic physical condition but mostly due, I think, to his style of play.

+1.
One thing I noticed that not many people mention, however, is Fed's mileage. Been #1 or #2 for about seven long years, and that long period of very hard work (as that's what it takes) will eventually take its toll on anyone's body, even Fed's with his style of play and his relative luck to have had no 'big' injuries during that period.
Something just has to give in the long run, it's only natural. That said, I still hope he's got some 'surprise' victories left on the big ones.

Start da Game
07-17-2010, 05:24 PM
There are several cogent arguments, I believe, that age has probably not been as influentual to the decline of Roger Federer as many people seem to believe.

First, Monofed. Roger Federer was at the twilight of his peak years, or simply beyond it when he contracted Mononucleosis (or Glandular Fever). He was 26 and a half going on 27 when this affected him. It is unknown how long the residual effects lasted for, but it is assumed he suffered from it to an extent for 3 grand slams. He played through it, and the worst of it was at the 2008 Australian Open. But he still managed to make the semis there, he took apart Tomas Byrditch in a clinical but close straight sets win. He lost a tight match to Djokovic who took every chance. Then at the French Open he reached the final without making too many hiccups. Was embarassed by a red hot Nadal. Made the Wimbledon final without dropping a set, then put on a clinic in the final with Nadal.

Whats the point of mentioning the mono you say? Well, this is it. He was 27 for all intents and purposes. This declining Federer has been 28/29. He looks in good physical shape generally at this moment. Would a 27 yearold suffering from Mononucleosis really be able to put on better performances than an incarnation of himself only 1 - 1 and a half years older? Unlikely in my opinion. Yes players like Byrditch have stepped up since 08, but maybe thats got more to do with it than Federers age? Other players arent afraid to step up anymore and take those 50/50 chances. Because thats what the matches he has been losing have come down to. Players taking those chances that maybe they would have pushed on in the past. Rogerer Federer aquitted himself very well when he was suffering from Mono. A 28 yearold with a clean bill of health should be able to put up better performances than a 27 yearold with Mono.

Why don't people talk about other players declines? What about Murray and Djokovics declines? They are only in their early to mid twenties. Whats their excuse? Why on earth do people think Federer is some sort of super human that has to be able to always bring his best 100% of the time until stopped by the natural ageing process? No other tennis player in history has done that, they have all had dark periods. Some when they were younger, some when older. Age has little to do with it.

There are other players who have risen at Federers age. Andre Agassi. What about Tommy Haas? He had a vintage season in 2009 and aquitted himself well in 2010 AO in his early thirties. He is not as nimble as Roger Federer. Federer is of course not as good as he used to be, he is a touch slower. But he never relied on his speed of foot heavily in the past to beat opponents.

The purpose of this thread is not to offer a reason for the decline, temporary or permanent we will have to see, I will leave that up to others. The purpose is to cast some doubt on this general consensus that exists that age is the reason Roger Federer has declined. I think it has played a part, but a small one. Maybe 20%.

But I will offer this food for thought. Del Potro, Soderling and Byrditch. The last three players to beat Roger Federer at Grand Slams. What do they all have in common? It is not that they are all similar game styles. It is not that they are all tall etc, the usual redundant arguements people give.

The thing they all have in common is this. They are all in the primes of their careers, playing the best tennis they will probably ever play! They were always under achievers, who had chances to make matches against Roger Federer in the past but lacked the clutch play, fitness and mental fortitude to go for the juggernaut. Enact that, and add Roger Federer being a bit off, and you have your answer, pure and simple.

The jury is still out on Del Potro obviously, as he was only 20 when he beat Federer for the US Open. But it's tough to imagine him playing any better than he has, he will hit the same level I believe.

finding it tough to think a name for fed? let me make your life easier.......how about clownger weeperer?

Sapeod
07-17-2010, 05:26 PM
he hasn't got the same quickness, reactions as he did back in his prime
he'll stick around the top 5 for a while
he still has a few gs in him

Priam
07-17-2010, 06:45 PM
His decline is overrated IMO. True he's lost a step, plus the motivation is probably not as high as it used to be, but it's not like he's being thrashed 2,2,2 all the time or losing early at the slams. If he goes deep (or wins) at USO, we will look past all these QFs and Fs.

azinna
07-17-2010, 07:26 PM
Tough to say. His movement does seem to have slowed just a tad bit, usually the first sign of age. But that could also be about motivation/footwork training, or the improved play and confidence of Berdych, Soderling. He certainly didn't look slower than normal against Murray (in his win at the Aussie Open) or against Nadal (in his loss later in the year). Some of his other losses have clearly been about mental lapses during big points.

Also, I've noticed that Berdych and Soderling were less bothered by the slice than previously. Neither were bothered by some of Federer's gets and shotmaking. And both knew how to handle Federer's attempts to neutralize the serve. They stuck with their aggressive game plan, hitting boldly, only occasionally over-hitting, less occasionally telegraphing their shots. They in effect reproduced many aspects of Safin's AO '05 form, and that was always going to be a tough match for Federer -- as it was in last year's Wimbledon final against Roddick.

I'd say that some of the big hitters have found their aggressive version of Nadal's challenge to Federer: which is to force him to attempt medium-to-low-percentage shots in almost every game or rally. Federer used to simply demoralize these players with 2-4 incredibly finessed and gasp-inducing points. Now, more players are asking him to do it again, and again, and again.

Acer
07-17-2010, 07:54 PM
Fed can't blame mono to excuse his bad results all the time...this is not a serious illness, usually it's very short, 15 days / 1 month...so mono has nothing to do with his stepback

Say that to poor Mario Ancic

Infinity
07-17-2010, 08:16 PM
Obviously age itself is not relevant in Federerīs decline. Itīs those little things that aging brings with it that eventually start playing a part in a playerīs level.

- Movement becomes slower, reactions slow a bit. You say Federer never relied primarily on his speed. But thatīs not entirely true. One of his biggest weapons has been his inside out forehand. Nowadays heīs just not able to run around his backhand enough, at least not enough to hit his forehand from a comfortable position. As a result, his backhand is exploited by other players.

- At his age, heīs already played so many years at the top, that itīs inevitable other players start to figure his game out, start to find his weaknesses and use them. This process is made faster by Federerīs loss of speed. This in turn causes other playerīs confidence to rise even more.

-Kids. A man with two babies sleeps less than a man with no kids. Itīs as simple as that. Being a father also brings other priorities and issues with it. Thatīs life, but doesnīt help his tennis.

No one stays at the top forever, and even if itīs not totally about age, it plays a big part, no question about it.

Oh, and the mono-reason is all bs. Has nothing to do with Fedīs current level, or decline.

Good post

MrChopin
07-17-2010, 08:37 PM
No, aging (and Nadal) is his worst opponent. His movement is way down hill as a result of age/extended play '04-'07.

One used to never be able to open the court up by hitting to Fed's FH. He used to be able to rocket that FH dtl in his prime or rip it deep CC, both options putting the opponent on the defensive with just one FH. It doesn't happen anymore, and that's one aspect of his game that's gone way down as a result of his movement being slower. Players can now hit there regularly, and such stretches him way wide. His FHs from this position are nearly always CC or squash shots anymore, landing short, and with little pace. They look good as passing shots, little as anything else.

One of many things that have changed with Fed's declining movement.

BK 201
07-17-2010, 09:42 PM
Oh Federer has been declining becuase of his movement and his inablity to alter his game (come to net etc). Agassi and Connors both proved that you can still win slams at an older age.

Sunset of Age
07-17-2010, 09:50 PM
Oh Federer has been declining becuase of his movement and his inablity to alter his game (come to net etc). Agassi and Connors both proved that you can still win slams at an older age.

Agassi wasn't really at the 'top of his game' for about 10+ years, he took a 'break' for certain reasons, as we all know by now. Connors played in an entirely different era where it was very possible to rack up points by playing numerous mickey mouse-tournaments.
It's quite different, nowadays. ;)

osmonde
07-17-2010, 09:52 PM
I don't buy the twins shortening his nights...come on, he is multi-millionaire.
They don't live alone...and have all the help they need. He can sleep when needed.
And the mono was not ths case this spring when he lost everything after AO.
Montanes, Berdych, even Gulbis kick him out on his first round at Rome.
He did not reach the Quarters in the first 3 Masters...except in Madrid, the finale.
Hewitt coming from both hips operations, same age, and a 3rd kid on the way, beat him in Basel on grass, his surface.

Now, he can't count only on his pure talent...and pretend he could win everything as before.
Older athletes need much more training than younger ones...Nadal, talented as well, does almost 7 hours a day in training: 2-3 on court and 4-5 on fitness.

If Gulbis at 21 would have had that discipline, he would have many titles under his belt, because he has a natural talent...but it is not enough...he is just learning that...

So if Fed doesn't put all the work to keep the form and is being discouraged by his losts, he can't always find excuses as he did even in Wimby...

Let's see how he will do coming in America...

BK 201
07-17-2010, 09:54 PM
Agassi wasn't really at the 'top of his game' for about 10+ years, he took a 'break' for certain reasons, as we all know by now. Connors played in an entirely different era where it was very possible to rack up points by playing numerous mickey mouse-tournaments.
It's quite different, nowadays. ;)

Lol. That last point is so invalid. This is possibly the weakest era since the 'Rios' circa back in the 90's. No one is capable of winning slams.

Sunset of Age
07-17-2010, 10:16 PM
Lol. That last point is so invalid. This is possibly the weakest era since the 'Rios' circa back in the 90's. No one is capable of winning slams.

:spit: - yeah sure. Just because two extraordinary players manage to rack up most of the slam titles, it's a 'weak era'?
How about the possibility of these two players just being so good that they managed to do so?

Oh... I gather you're a Sampras tard, no? ;)

2003
07-17-2010, 10:54 PM
In bringing up the mono, I was not in any way trying to suggest he is still suffering from it. It's not like maleria that stays with you forever.

I was trying to say that why is it that a post peak Fed was able to make grand slam semis and finals easily whilst suffering from Mononucleosis, yet a slightly older perfectly fit version of himself cannot?

Mono > Age is all im saying.

allpro
07-17-2010, 11:50 PM
- Movement becomes slower

His movement does seem to have slowed just a tad bit, usually the first sign of age.

Oh Federer has been declining becuase of his movement

yup, he's a half step slower.

ask any great athlete and they'll all tell you the same thing: the legs are the first to go.

HarryMan
07-18-2010, 03:56 AM
Federer has been decling slightly since 2008. His forehand is not as lethal as it used to be and his backhand floaters give all the big hitters enough time to set up their shots. When you push him to his forehand side on the stretch, Federer makes lots of errors. His serve isn't very dependable now a days.

I mean his decline isn't very bad or else he wouldn't be making the quarters of slams. His decline is good enough and has increased the chances of players who had lots of trouble against him during his prime. Of course these players (Soderling, Berych, del Potro before injury) have improved their level of play which makes it even more tough.

I still see Federer winning couple of slam titles but it won't be easy at all.

RafaTheBest
07-18-2010, 05:17 AM
You spelt Berdych incorrectly.

Shut the fuck up.

RafaTheBest
07-18-2010, 05:23 AM
Remember, Robin Soderling beat Nadal when he was pretty much in his prime. I don't buy the injury bullsheit, Nadal was fine just two days before when he pistol whipped Lleyton Hewitt.

So he just skipped Wimbledon where he was defending champion because he was bored with tennis or something?

You obviously have very poor knowledge of how injuries work. You can be fine one day then become injured or aggravate an old injury the next. It's not fucking rocket science.

But go on spewing your conspiracy theory bullshit about how he wasn't really injured and skipping Wimbledon and giving away his 2000 points was just a facade.

kindling
07-18-2010, 05:26 AM
Fed can't blame mono to excuse his bad results all the time...this is not a serious illness, usually it's very short, 15 days / 1 month...so mono has nothing to do with his stepback

Mono never leaves. The hardcore symptoms go away, but the virus stays in you and it's dependent on the person as to whether it's affects come and go or affect the person infected. I've had it, it's rough.

Such a double edged sword having the success Fed's had. He still gets farther than 99% of the players out there, and yet, he's declining. Besides, what's the big deal? The guy's accomplished everything in tennis. Who can blame him if the fire in his belly isn't what it used to be. It'd happen to anyone.

2003
07-18-2010, 09:40 AM
So he just skipped Wimbledon where he was defending champion because he was bored with tennis or something?

You obviously have very poor knowledge of how injuries work. You can be fine one day then become injured or aggravate an old injury the next. It's not fucking rocket science.

But go on spewing your conspiracy theory bullshit about how he wasn't really injured and skipping Wimbledon and giving away his 2000 points was just a facade.

Look, he suffered from tendonitis of the knee.

It's an injury he felt would be too risky to play a 2 week grand slam on. It is an injury that flares up yes, but its not a hugely dehibilitating one. Rafa played many warm up testing matches before making the decision to flag SW19 2009. It was a case of if im 95% I still don't play.

In terms of that one match, it did not cost him the match. Get your facts right before you call me a conspiracy theorist.

I have actually suffered from tendonitis of the kneecap. I am a runner, so I know exactly how it effects you thank you very much.

2003
07-18-2010, 09:43 AM
Mono never leaves. The hardcore symptoms go away, but the virus stays in you and it's dependent on the person as to whether it's affects come and go or affect the person infected. I've had it, it's rough.

Yeah, we call it glandular fever in this part of the world, but my research has convinced me we are talking about the same thing. We don't call it mono down under.

When I played Rugby a few years ago a few team mates were struck down with it. Some were affected for as much as 6 months. It was rough watching them during the worst of it, they would come on the pitch and basically make a few runs and have to come off again.

Federers was probably on the mid level scale.

Tutu
07-18-2010, 09:45 AM
He's not even that old. It's his brainlessness that is holding him back right now.

.-Federers_Mate-.
07-18-2010, 09:47 AM
yes injuries have definately blighted rogers career recently. Tennis fans can only hope that he gets better and dominats the tour as per usual

.-Federers_Mate-.
07-18-2010, 09:48 AM
He's not even that old. It's his brainlessness that is holding him back right now.

that would be you, slutiana ;)

Tutu
07-18-2010, 10:29 AM
yes injuries have definately blighted rogers career recently. Tennis fans can only hope that he gets better and dominats the tour as per usual
Yeah, totally, even though he has had like 3 injuries in the last 7 years.
that would be you, slutiana ;)
Stop stalking TF if you hate the WTA so much.

.-Federers_Mate-.
07-18-2010, 10:38 AM
Yeah, totally, even though he has had like 3 injuries in the last 7 years.

Stop stalking TF if you hate the WTA so much.

1. He has had injuries, during his so called decline. before that, when he was at full health..well you know whta happened ;)


2. Dmitru verdasco said you were the poster Slutiana in the wta world chat thread. Dont give me that tacky cheek

2003
07-18-2010, 11:04 AM
If bruised ego qualifies as an ailment, than yes, Roger Federer is currently suffering from a potentially career ending injury at this moment :devil:

.-Federers_Mate-.
07-18-2010, 11:10 AM
If bruised ego qualifies as an ailment, than yes, Roger Federer is currently suffering from a potentially career ending injury at this moment :devil:

no it was a leg injury. Shut up

Dougie
07-18-2010, 11:12 AM
1. He has had injuries, during his so called decline. before that, when he was at full health..well you know whta happened ;)




Heīs had minor injuries just like any athlete whoīs at the top for several years, nothing out of the ordinary.

.-Federers_Mate-.
07-18-2010, 11:22 AM
Heīs had minor injuries just like any athlete whoīs at the top for several years, nothing out of the ordinary.

do you have a problem??

Mono, lung infections, aching backs etc are not minor injuries. Your arrogance irritates me :mad:

Dougie
07-18-2010, 11:27 AM
do you have a problem??

Mono, lung infections, aching backs etc are not minor injuries. Your arrogance irritates me :mad:

:rolleyes: Come on, for an athlete whoīs getting close to 30 an aching back is NOT a major injury. The mono ruined one AO from him, lung infection is not necessarily anything more than a hard flu with a fancy diagnosis. Your whining irritates me.

Sunset of Age
07-18-2010, 11:43 AM
:rolleyes: Come on, for an athlete whoīs getting close to 30 an aching back is NOT a major injury. The mono ruined one AO from him, lung infection is not necessarily anything more than a hard flu with a fancy diagnosis. Your whining irritates me.

Spot-on - Fed is in fact a very blessed guy when it comes to having injuries (and more of course) - he never had anything that took him out for more than three months as far as I can remember. No need to make any big deal out of it.
Though, truth be told - he's been having back problems since the early start of his career. But if that's the only thing...

.-Federers_Mate-.
07-18-2010, 11:48 AM
:rolleyes: Come on, for an athlete whoīs getting close to 30 an aching back is NOT a major injury. The mono ruined one AO from him, lung infection is not necessarily anything more than a hard flu with a fancy diagnosis. Your whining irritates me.

Spot-on - Fed is in fact a very blessed guy when it comes to having injuries (and more of course) - he never had anything that took him out for more than three months as far as I can remember. No need to make any big deal out of it.
Though, truth be told - he's been having back problems since the early start of his career. But if that's the only thing...

get a room.



Federers recent injuries have been a major reason of why he has had little success in the past months. Federer had time to recover form another legendary season (2009), and straight away won a slam, in simple fashion. Suddenly Federer gets a lung infection, and shock horror, he plays poorly for the next few months. 04-07 Federer didnt have any real injury concerns, howver recently he has, and they have affected his game big time. Any one with a decent IQ can realise that

Sunset of Age
07-18-2010, 11:50 AM
Federers recent injuries have been a major reason of why he has had little success in the past months. Federer had time to recover form another legendary season (2009), and straight away won a slam, in simple fashion. Suddenly Federer gets a lung infection, and shock horror, he plays poorly for the next few months. 04-07 Federer didnt have any real injury concerns, howver recently he has, and they have affected his game big time. Any one with a decent IQ can realise that

Anyone with a decent IQ can realize that ALL athletes get their share of physical adversities once in a while. ALL of them. And Federer's are very minor in comparison to most others'. :wavey:

Dougie
07-18-2010, 11:53 AM
do you have a problem??

Mono, lung infections, aching backs etc are not minor injuries. Your arrogance irritates me :mad:

You actually gave me bad rep for saying Federer hasnīt had major injuries?? Take your head out of Fedīs ass, youīre the one with a problem. Iīm sure heīs had his share of aches and pains, but who hasnīt? Someone whoīs career is seriously affected by injuries is Muster, or Haas, not Federer.

Dougie
07-18-2010, 11:57 AM
get a room.



Federers recent injuries have been a major reason of why he has had little success in the past months. Federer had time to recover form another legendary season (2009), and straight away won a slam, in simple fashion. Suddenly Federer gets a lung infection, and shock horror, he plays poorly for the next few months. 04-07 Federer didnt have any real injury concerns, howver recently he has, and they have affected his game big time. Any one with a decent IQ can realise that

A lung infection is the reason for a few months bad play? Even Federer himself would laugh at Federers_Mates reasoning. Get a grip. Not every cold Federer suffers are career threatening.

.-Federers_Mate-.
07-18-2010, 11:57 AM
i have to laugh at Federers haters. Listen fella's, the guy has had some bad injuries recently, he will be baack and add to his 16 grand slams


http://www.dailyworldbuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/federer1.jpg

Dougie
07-18-2010, 12:03 PM
i have to laugh at Federers haters. Listen fella's, the guy has had some bad injuries recently, he will be baack and add to his 16 grand slams



Maybe he will. But thereīs a rumour going around he had a slight diarrhea last week. Might put him out of US Open. Hopefully heīll be back to defend his AO title. Could be serious, though.

.-Federers_Mate-.
07-18-2010, 12:05 PM
Maybe he will. But thereīs a rumour going around he had a slight diarrhea last week. Might put him out of US Open. Hopefully heīll be back to defend his AO title. Could be serious, though.

dont joke about that Dougie. Just dont

Singularity
07-18-2010, 12:07 PM
do you have a problem??

Mono, lung infections, aching backs etc are not minor injuries. Your arrogance irritates me :mad:
Mono is the only serious injury/illness on that list. The other things you list are no different from what *any* tennis player has to deal with. You can't expect to play tennis at the highest level for several years without suffering injuries along the way. For example, Murray has had wrist, groin, hip, ankle and foot problems at various points; Djokovic has had some of the same problems as well as fitness/conditioning issues, Nadal, well...

christallh24
07-18-2010, 12:14 PM
Maybe he will. But thereīs a rumour going around he had a slight diarrhea last week. Might put him out of US Open. Hopefully heīll be back to defend his AO title. Could be serious, though.

:haha::haha::haha:

Helevorn
07-18-2010, 12:23 PM
federer doesn't blame on anything, he's fucking rich, he has a family and he doesn't care about tennis anymore, it's simple as that and there's no need of elaborate thinkings

alfonsojose
07-18-2010, 02:29 PM
Obviously age itself is not relevant in Federerīs decline. Itīs those little things that aging brings with it that eventually start playing a part in a playerīs level.

- Movement becomes slower, reactions slow a bit. You say Federer never relied primarily on his speed. But thatīs not entirely true. One of his biggest weapons has been his inside out forehand. Nowadays heīs just not able to run around his backhand enough, at least not enough to hit his forehand from a comfortable position. As a result, his backhand is exploited by other players.

- At his age, heīs already played so many years at the top, that itīs inevitable other players start to figure his game out, start to find his weaknesses and use them. This process is made faster by Federerīs loss of speed. This in turn causes other playerīs confidence to rise even more.

-Kids. A man with two babies sleeps less than a man with no kids. Itīs as simple as that. Being a father also brings other priorities and issues with it. Thatīs life, but doesnīt help his tennis.

No one stays at the top forever, and even if itīs not totally about age, it plays a big part, no question about it.

Oh, and the mono-reason is all bs. Has nothing to do with Fedīs current level, or decline.
Movement it is a big issue for Federer. He has won the last slams with a great serve, great counterpounching combination. The new generation doesn't allow him to hit the same amount of winners he did agains Hewitt and co. in 2003 - 2005. That Federer was scary, but there were no mature Delpos, Soderlings or Berdychs either :shrug:

paseo
07-18-2010, 02:43 PM
Movement it is a big issue for Federer. He has won the last slams with a great serve, great counterpounching combination. The new generation doesn't allow him to hit the same amount of winners he did agains Hewitt and co. in 2003 - 2005. That Federer was scary, but there were no mature Delpos, Soderlings or Berdychs either :shrug:

IMO, 2003-2005 Hewitt, Nalbandian, Safin >>> 2010 Del Potro, Soderling Berdych.

azinna
07-18-2010, 04:23 PM
IMO, 2003-2005 Hewitt, Nalbandian, Safin >>> 2010 Del Potro, Soderling Berdych.

IMO, Hewitt <<< Del Potro, Soderling Berdych, at least in terms of the danger they could pose to a well-playing Federer.

I agree with your comparison to Nalbandian, Safin -- but only when comparing A-games, which we know Nalbandian and Safin just occasionally brought to the court.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
07-18-2010, 04:38 PM
http://www.sportvox.fr/IMG/ball-wars654645.jpg/bmi_orig_img/ball-wars654645.jpg

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
07-18-2010, 04:48 PM
browsing the whorehouse and the tards have been trolling nicely as always

http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/5456/screenshot20100413at101.png

http://bbs.tennis.com.cn/uploadFiles/2010-06/27_11305953_1.jpg

.-Federers_Mate-.
07-19-2010, 10:44 AM
:haha::haha::haha:


you have a bad sense of humour

Serenidad
07-19-2010, 12:07 PM
Roger is just paving the way for Brands to come along and do it better. :shrug: His time is over Brands is ready for this breakthrough.

2003
07-19-2010, 09:53 PM
you have a bad sense of humour

And you are far too trigger happy giving out bad reps just because people offer a differing viewpoint..your going to make a lot of enemies fast.

.-Federers_Mate-.
07-20-2010, 07:52 AM
And you are far too trigger happy giving out bad reps just because people offer a differing viewpoint..your going to make a lot of enemies fast.


fuck off 2003


are you from Invercargil or what?

2003
07-20-2010, 09:42 AM
fuck off 2003


are you from Invercargil or what?

Auckland mate.

Il Primo Uomo
07-20-2010, 10:53 AM
People need to chill. Dude won a GS this year. It will be about time to talk about any decline when he doesn't win any in a calendar year. Wasn't his ass in decline back in 2008? Look what happened! People never learn. SMH

Imaster
08-13-2011, 07:23 PM
Time and again we have seen the opponent (righty) hit really hard to Federer's backhand, and the response being either a crosscourt backhand slice or a topspin backhand somewhere in the middle of the court.

Both the above shots give the opponent the opportunity to run around his backhand and get in the inside-out forehand position. And once the opponent gets in the inside-out forehand position, Federer is in deep trouble, as the opponent can hit a deep angle to the Fed's backhand or a forehand inside-in shot. This is an extremely unfavorable position for Fed.

When Fed lost to Berdych in Wimbledon, and then against Tsonga in last two encounters, this pattern was getting repeated again and again and again.

Fed makes quite a few errors when trying to hit hard backhand down-the-line shots, do you think he should just slice more often down-the-line so that the opponent cannot get in the inside-out forehand position, and is mostly forced to hit to Fed's backhand.

Thus Fed should slice crosscourt only when he is sure the opponent would be unable to run around it, otherwise he should just slice it down-the-line when defending, thus forcing the opponent to hit more shots to Fed's forehand...

Snowwy
08-13-2011, 07:27 PM
Can someone post a link to the thread "What is wrong wtih R. Federer". I cannot find it.

Thanks. :)

Certinfy
08-13-2011, 07:34 PM
But then he'll be playing to Berdych's/Tsonga's/Del Potro's/Soderling's forehands which may result in him getting even more hurt.

Imaster
08-14-2011, 05:06 AM
But then he'll be playing to Berdych's/Tsonga's/Del Potro's/Soderling's forehands which may result in him getting even more hurt.

His backhand shots are more or less to the middle, and his cross-court slices are easily being run around, thus even currently Berdych/Tsonga/Del Potro/Soderling are hitting forehands.

It is more favorable for Federer to make these opponents hit cross-court forehands to Fed's forehand side, rather than them hitting inside-out forehands to Fed's backhand.

BodyServe
08-14-2011, 10:37 AM
I'm not sure it would change anything but i agree that the slice down the line right on the opponent forehand is underrated.
It's a little tougher to do though because the net is higher.

Shirogane
08-14-2011, 10:46 AM
I've already said that/asked myself why he doesn't/if he was able to do this more often, as have many others too before me I think; can't remember on what thread(s) though. Yeah, good suggestion IMO but guess it's easier said than done...

barbadosan
08-14-2011, 03:18 PM
Does Fed really have to do any of this suggested stuff? He's done just about everything in the game; 16 slams, a zillion records, many of which may never be broken. Why shouldn't he just play the game as long as he enjoys doing it, period. He has nothing to prove now - not to fellow players, and certainly not to faceless internet posters :)

Clay Death
08-14-2011, 03:23 PM
there is nothing wrong with Fed. he is 30 now and the field has improved significantly.

now his mentally checking out in some matches is something that i cant explain.

2slik
08-14-2011, 03:40 PM
Time and again we have seen the opponent (righty) hit really hard to Federer's backhand, and the response being either a crosscourt backhand slice or a topspin backhand somewhere in the middle of the court.

Both the above shots give the opponent the opportunity to run around his backhand and get in the inside-out forehand position. And once the opponent gets in the inside-out forehand position, Federer is in deep trouble, as the opponent can hit a deep angle to the Fed's backhand or a forehand inside-in shot. This is an extremely unfavorable position for Fed.

When Fed lost to Berdych in Wimbledon, and then against Tsonga in last two encounters, this pattern was getting repeated again and again and again.

Fed makes quite a few errors when trying to hit hard backhand down-the-line shots, do you think he should just slice more often down-the-line so that the opponent cannot get in the inside-out forehand position, and is mostly forced to hit to Fed's backhand.

Thus Fed should slice crosscourt only when he is sure the opponent would be unable to run around it, otherwise he should just slice it down-the-line when defending, thus forcing the opponent to hit more shots to Fed's forehand...

This would be futile as these guys you mention are and always have been a bad match up for Federer. Guys with strong cross court forehands. Federer struggles against guys who have a lot of angle or variety on the backhand, or have strong cross court forehands. This because Federer lacks a hard topspin backhand down the line and also a hard cross court backhand. In most of Federer's rallies over the years, he will nearly always play an offensive slice cross-court backhand, which coincidentally goes over the lowest part of the net. This shot selection in most cases is fine.

What you are suggesting though is that Federer should play slices down the line, presumably aggressive ones, to have an advantage in the rally. This is virtually impossible to do with great consistency unless you are like Sebastian Grosjean because you are going over the highest part of the net to do it. You are also assuming that Federer's opponents are hitting to his backhand side with a lot of pace but this is rarely the case with an inside-out forehand as control is more key to the shot then actually power. If there is a lot of power in the inside out forehand from his opponent, then it would make sense to go down the line. If there isn't and Federer slices down the line then his opponent will probably go for angle winner cross court or go back down the line while coming into the net.

Slicing down the line on the atp tour, especially the top 100 is actually a disadvantage then an advantage.

Asadinator
08-14-2011, 03:58 PM
Fed's backhand has gotten worse over the years. In fact I would say it was better in 2003.

atennisfan
08-14-2011, 04:16 PM
He's 30 FFS.
let's see what nadal or djoko can do when they're 30.

AndyNonomous
08-14-2011, 04:27 PM
Skill = talent + hard work.

Roger has always had the talent, but it is VERY clear to me that he hasn't being doing the hard work for the last 4 1/2 years (and his declining results bear this out).

It is human nature to "rest on your laurels", and that is EXACTLY what Roger has been doing. His skill level has been dropping for the last 4 1/2 years, so that now he is no longer competitive (he could win a "fluke" slam now, but the odds are HIGHLY stacked against it). He hasn't won a GS for 1 1/2 years for a reason.

Ya, he could "hang around" as long as he wants, but the fans are going to start getting tired of him and his delusions soon (the worst of which is that he is a better player today than he was a few years ago). The longer he "hangs around", the farther his skills will fall, the farther his performance and ranking will fall. There will be more and more pressure for him to retire.

If you are not willing to do whatever it takes (within the rules) to win, GET OUT OF THE GAME !

atennisfan
08-14-2011, 04:36 PM
I agree. It does look like fed has been getting very lazy.

star
08-14-2011, 04:49 PM
Skill = talent + hard work.

Roger has always had the talent, but it is VERY clear to me that he hasn't being doing the hard work for the last 4 1/2 years (and his declining results bear this out).

It is human nature to "rest on your laurels", and that is EXACTLY what Roger has been doing. His skill level has been dropping for the last 4 1/2 years, so that now he is no longer competitive (he could win a "fluke" slam now, but the odds are HIGHLY stacked against it). He hasn't won a GS for 1 1/2 years for a reason.

Ya, he could "hang around" as long as he wants, but the fans are going to start getting tired of him and his delusions soon (the worst of which is that he is a better player today than he was a few years ago). The longer he "hangs around", the farther his skills will fall, the farther his performance and ranking will fall. There will be more and more pressure for him to retire.

If you are not willing to do whatever it takes (within the rules) to win, GET OUT OF THE GAME !

How do you know he isn’t working hard for the last 4 1/2 years?

That sounds like pure speculation to me.

As for getting out of the game if one is lazy, a lot of lower level players would have to get out.

To me, this generation of tennis players is far more hard working than tennis players of the past. They are fitter and stronger and pay more attention to their diets and habits than was done 20 years ago or even 10 years ago.

AndyNonomous
08-14-2011, 05:05 PM
How do you know he isn’t working hard for the last 4 1/2 years?



- Many people have seen his in-tournament practices. "lackadasial" seems to be the consensus. If his in-tournament practices are "lackadasial", I suspect that his private training sessions are getting more "lackadasial" as well.

- We hear less and less about Roger's "pre-season" training (he used to go to Dubai for weeks to train ahead of a season).

- His consistency has fallen off. His serve, forehand, backhand and net game have all become more inconsistent. This is a sign of a poor training regime.

- There are persistent rumours that Peter Lundgren (his coach from 2000 to 2003) said that Roger is lazy and stubborn. If a lazy person has reached the top of the hill, they would normally let up on the work that got them there.


It's funny how people today think that you have to "prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law", before you can say something publicly. The circumstantial evidence is quite compelling that ROGER FEDERER IS TALENTED, BUT LAZY. I can't prove this, but it is more than likely true.

Singularity
08-14-2011, 05:24 PM
- Many people have seen his in-tournament practices. "lackadasial" seems to be the consensus. If his in-tournament practices are "lackadasial", I suspect that his private training sessions are getting more "lackadasial" as well.
Or, Federer's training style makes him appear more 'relaxed':

" Bayon was struck by how Federer began the drill in a playful, relaxed way, but then, almost imperceptibly, he would shift into deep concentration.

“One minute he was hitting easily,” Bayon recalled, “and then — boom! — he became the Roger Federer you see in a Grand Slam final. He completely shuts out all distractions, and for 15 straight minutes he was in the zone. He ran for every ball, even out balls.” The threesome would then take a drink break, during which Federer would sometimes ingest an energy gel. They would then resume doing two on one drills, going hard for close to an hour.

The second phase of practice was set play. Federer would play for 60 to 90 minutes, first with Levine, with Berankis. Allegro would sometimes come later, if Federer wanted more set play. “What impressed me the most was that he revealed nothing. I never saw fatigue. After practice, Federer would say,’I am completely exhausted’, but he looked the same. After set play he always hit two small baskets of serves — one to the deuce, and one to the ad — for a total of 100 serves.” "

http://straightsets.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/19/training-with-federer-in-dubai/

- We hear less and less about Roger's "pre-season" training (he used to go to Dubai for weeks to train ahead of a season).
He still does this every year.

- His consistency has fallen off. His serve, forehand, backhand and net game have all become more inconsistent. This is a sign of a poor training regime.
It's also a sign of getting older, and is what happens to all athletes.

- There are persistent rumours that Peter Lundgren (his coach from 1999 to 2003) said that Roger is lazy and stubborn. If a lazy person has reached the top of the hill, they would normally let up on the work that got them there.
If Ludgren has said this, provide the quote. Otherwise refrain from making baseless accusations.

This is what Annacone said after becoming his coach:

"One of the most amazing things about Roger is that he so loves it, still, and it's not a grind to go play smaller tournaments. It's not a grind to train. I mean, he loves it. The energy level's incredible"

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sport/roger-federers-coach-paul-annacone-says-20-grand-slam-titles-not-beyond-star-charge/story-e6frg7mf-1225986598289

It's funny how young people today think that you have to "prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law", before you can say something publicly. The circumstantial evidence is quite compelling that ROGER FEDERER IS TALENTED, BUT LAZY. I can't prove this, but it is more than likely true.
It's one thing not to be able to prove something. It's quite another to not even to be able to provide a single piece of compelling evidence, other than your own speculation.

Pirata.
08-14-2011, 05:29 PM
^^Owned

MrChopin
08-14-2011, 05:37 PM
- Many people have seen his in-tournament practices. "lackadasial" seems to be the consensus. If his in-tournament practices are "lackadasial", I suspect that his private training sessions are getting more "lackadasial" as well.

- We hear less and less about Roger's "pre-season" training (he used to go to Dubai for weeks to train ahead of a season).

- His consistency has fallen off. His serve, forehand, backhand and net game have all become more inconsistent. This is a sign of a poor training regime.

- There are persistent rumours that Peter Lundgren (his coach from 2000 to 2003) said that Roger is lazy and stubborn. If a lazy person has reached the top of the hill, they would normally let up on the work that got them there.


It's funny how people today think that you have to "prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law", before you can say something publicly. The circumstantial evidence is quite compelling that ROGER FEDERER IS TALENTED, BUT LAZY. I can't prove this, but it is more than likely true.

It's also funny that you think opinions are -too often- dismissed. Opinions (http://www.menstennisforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=2) aren't dismissed enough.

You say Federer is lazy based on a one word summary from what many people have "seen", what we don't hear about, and a rumour about words a near-decade-ago-coach may have used. Excuse me but I'm not convinced.

AndyNonomous
08-14-2011, 06:20 PM
Or, Federer's training style makes him appear more 'relaxed':

" Bayon was struck by how Federer began the drill in a playful, relaxed way, but then, almost imperceptibly, he would shift into deep concentration.

“One minute he was hitting easily,” Bayon recalled, “and then — boom! — he became the Roger Federer you see in a Grand Slam final. He completely shuts out all distractions, and for 15 straight minutes he was in the zone. He ran for every ball, even out balls.” The threesome would then take a drink break, during which Federer would sometimes ingest an energy gel. They would then resume doing two on one drills, going hard for close to an hour.

The second phase of practice was set play. Federer would play for 60 to 90 minutes, first with Levine, with Berankis. Allegro would sometimes come later, if Federer wanted more set play. “What impressed me the most was that he revealed nothing. I never saw fatigue. After practice, Federer would say,’I am completely exhausted’, but he looked the same. After set play he always hit two small baskets of serves — one to the deuce, and one to the ad — for a total of 100 serves.” "

http://straightsets.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/19/training-with-federer-in-dubai/



He still does this every year.


It's also a sign of getting older, and is what happens to all athletes.


If Ludgren has said this, provide the quote. Otherwise refrain from making baseless accusations.

This is what Annacone said after becoming his coach:

"One of the most amazing things about Roger is that he so loves it, still, and it's not a grind to go play smaller tournaments. It's not a grind to train. I mean, he loves it. The energy level's incredible"

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sport/roger-federers-coach-paul-annacone-says-20-grand-slam-titles-not-beyond-star-charge/story-e6frg7mf-1225986598289


It's one thing not to be able to prove something. It's quite another to not even to be able to provide a single piece of compelling evidence, other than your own speculation.





- So, your response to me saying most people who have seen him practise in-tournament say he is lackadasial, is to quote a single individual that at one point in time at a non-tournament training session in Dubai, said Roger picked up the pace in his practice ? Where is your "compelling proof".

- Your response to me saying that we hear less of his Dubai training sessions, is "that he still does this every year". Do you have "compelling proof" that he has these sessions as many times per year, for as many weeks a year, and are as intense as they have always been ?

- You suggest his consistency is lacking "because of age". That sounds like "speculation" to me.

- You said "I have to prove Lundgrem called Federer lazy". Can you provide "proof" that he didn't ? (otherwise, by your own standards, you can't say "Roger is a hard worker" on an internet forum).
"Federer was lazy and lacked motivation says Lundgren." (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Federer+was+lazy+and+lacked+motivation+says+Lundgr en.-a0245988333)


People make conclusions thousands of times a day on this forum, without compelling proof, including YOURSELF, yet you tell me I have to prove everything I put here ?

Do you know what a hypocrite is ?

This isn't a criminal trial, it is an internet forum. I stated I can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt that Roger is lazy, but the odds are , based purely on circumstantial evidence, that he is.

Rafa = Fed Killa
08-14-2011, 06:22 PM
There is nothing wrong with Federer

- he is just being exposed as the overrated mentally weak clown that he always was. Also, that he cant win GS unless his opponents are kids or mental clowns. Dancing ballet helped Federer get a lot of female fans but he is not tough enough to be a real sportsman.

Singularity
08-14-2011, 07:33 PM
- So, your response to me saying most people who have seen him practise in-tournament say he is lackadasial, is to quote a single individual that at one point in time at a non-tournament training session in Dubai, said Roger picked up the pace in his practice ? Where is your "compelling proof".
Which people, exactly, called his practice sessions "lackadaisical"? Oh, that's right you didn't give any examples. You just attributed an expression to a set of non-identified individuals (weasel words (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word)). How exactly are you supposed to debate what was meant, when you don't even know what was said, and by whom?

In any case, I wasn't making a claim; you were. You asserted that Federer's laziness has lead to his downturn, which is why the burden of proof is on you to prove that, not on me to prove otherwise.

The point of what I wrote about his Dubai training, is that Federer's practice sessions, can seem 'lackadaisical', without actually being so, when Federer doesn't visibly show signs of tiredness, and concentrates intensely in 'bursts'.

- Your response to me saying that we hear less of his Dubai training sessions, is "that he still does this every year". Do you have "compelling proof" that he has these sessions as many times per year, for as many weeks a year, and are as intense as they have always been ?
No, I don't, because we've never been told exactly how often Roger trains and for how long. These sessions aren't 'news' per se, and we only hear about them when a journalist decides to write an article about Federer's training regime, giving us access only to the reports that journalist has been provided with. Absence of proof is not proof of absence however, and even if we've heard less about what Roger is doing it doesn't follow that Roger is doing less.
- You suggest his consistency is lacking "because of age". That sounds like "speculation" to me.
It's simply an observation that most tennis athletes decline during their late twenties, as a result of a loss in timing and footspeed, leading to their eventual retirement at around 30 (Federer's age). So what Federer is experiencing is perfectly normal.
- You said "I have to prove Lundgrem called Federer lazy". Can you provide "proof" that he didn't ? (otherwise, by your own standards, you can't say "Roger is a hard worker" on an internet forum).
"Federer was lazy and lacked motivation says Lundgren." (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Federer+was+lazy+and+lacked+motivation+says+Lundgr en.-a0245988333)
If you notice, I never said Federer was a 'hard worker' (however you want to define that). You're the one making the claims, not me.

In the article you linked to, Lundgren said that Federer was tough to motivate initially, in the beginning of their relationship. He also said that this improved over time. The article doesn't talk about Federer's level of motivation during his professional career. The "Federer was lazy and lacked motivation" headline seems to be the article writer's spin on these comments, rather than a direct quote from Lundgren.
People make conclusions thousands of times a day on this forum, without compelling proof, including YOURSELF, yet you tell me I have to prove everything I put here ?
I never asked for compelling proof. I asked for compelling evidence.

tjohansson
09-11-2011, 11:43 PM
I watched Federer in every game of the Open and I genuinely think it was Vintage Federer from a couple of years back, He started off slowly against Giraldo but made it look really easy just way too much class for the Argentine.

The Match against Tsonga just goes to show he makes a big step up on those big occasions and probably played the most flawless tennis I've seen him play ever against Monaco who isn't a bad player at all hence why he got to the 4th round.

I just believe two much younger players in Djokovic and Nadal are just faster, more athletic; generally a touch better then Federer but I don't recall him losing to anyone of a lesser class ever; He has made the Quarters or a grand slam (at least) since the French open in 2004; Is just and has been Mr Consistent for a long time now, I don't believe he has lost much consistency at all.

I was just heartbroken at him losing to Djokovic; I think a year or two a go against the same opponent at his same peak of his powers, He would of went on with it and won it in 3 sets. But as much as I hate Djokovic he is just a champion Tennis player and he looks to become the 10's dynasty, If anything a bit of mentality has been lost from Federer's game. That can affect any unforced errors he makes but other then that I think we have the Same Federer from 2007 through to 2009.

I think Federer has the class in him to win another grand slam, There's only two players that stand in the way of that in the world and I think there is a ridiculous class drop between Federer and Andy Murray. I can only see one of three men winning a grand slam singles title within the next 12 months.

MatchFederer
09-11-2011, 11:46 PM
No.

Federer has lost some speed and vitality, is less willing to improvise these days and has lost his passing shots. That doesn't mean he can't play great but he's only won 1 title this year. To not see that Federer at 30 isn't quite the player he has been is just silly.

He can produce great performances but not with the old level of consistency and not *quite* with the same old brilliance.

Even from a couple of years back there has still been a drop in his level, although he was already slowly declining back then.

icedevil0289
09-11-2011, 11:48 PM
or it could be both you know

Certinfy
09-11-2011, 11:50 PM
No. Federer's on the decline and Djokovic is on the rise. Nadal however may also be on the decline, whether it's permanent or not is to be told.

Swiss_Bagels17
09-12-2011, 12:01 AM
A prime Federer doesn't lose back to back Majors from 2 sets up. He hasn't had the same motivation since he become a dad. It's understandable.

Sham Kay
09-12-2011, 12:20 AM
Well he's declining. But no where near at the rate some people seem to suggest, judging by his performance at the USO. It's an incredibly slow decline, where he's still more than good enough to compete against and beat players at the top of the game in their prime.

Though referring to someone who had two match points against the best player in the world by a country mile in a grand slam semi as "declining" does seem like a flawed statement, so I see your point, but that's just how great Fed is that even the best of the best currently must toil on the edge of defeat just to beat him.

oranges
09-12-2011, 12:25 AM
Have you not watched Fedrer during his prime? Either that or you're blind. There's no other explanation.

SetSampras
09-12-2011, 12:30 AM
I would have to disagree and say Fed has no doubt declined (I think its not as drastic as people want to have u believe but it is because the guy is still making QF, Semis, Finals CONSISTENTLY) If he was truly declined he wouldnt have such good results slam wise.. The decline has been slow, certainly not fast. And thats mainly because he never seems to get injured. Hes one of them lucky birds.

Having said that.. I still don't believe even Fed AT HIS PEAK would be #1 with Nole and Nadal around. So it doesn't matter. Fed never had what u would call great clutchness or mental toughness.. He had it but to the point others have had. Nole is a mental monster now, Nadal has always been. These guys would never yeild to the FedEXpress and they have more talent by light years as opposed to Fed's contemporaries.

Both of these guys would have taken a SHIT TON of slams away from Roger during the years he amassed the majority of his (04-07). They both have something Fed hates.. Mental toughness, movement, and supreme talent. Fed with his 3 slams a year? You can forget about that with a peak Nole and prime Rafa around


So in that respect yea.. Fed came at the perfect time (Post Pete and Andre, and pre Peak-Prime Nadal and Nole) Not to say he wouldn't have slams, but nowhere near what he has now.

tommyg6
09-12-2011, 12:31 AM
Feds still has it, imo. I'm not worried about his game. He will pick up a few more titles this year, count on it.

SetSampras
09-12-2011, 12:41 AM
A prime Federer doesn't lose back to back Majors from 2 sets up. He hasn't had the same motivation since he become a dad. It's understandable.

Fed had some mental choke moments even during his best days.. It isn't like this is completely out of the ordinary for Fed to choke some matches away

FedvsNole
09-12-2011, 01:36 AM
Fed had some mental choke moments even during his best days.. It isn't like this is completely out of the ordinary for Fed to choke some matches away


I have only seen post 2009 fed chokes:
1. AO 2009: served terrible, should not have lost this to nadal
2. del potro 2009 us open
3. tsonga montreal 5-1 third
4. tsonga wibledon 2011
5. Djoko us 2011 40-15

Hey setsampras. Were you at all impressed with fed playing Djoker at this us open 2011... I thought he played well brilliantly the first two sets and he caused djokovic not to have a rythym. Props to djokoer for fighting back. I was for sure fed would get killed in that final set but props to him to get it as close as he did and honestly 99/100 he wouldn't lose 40-15 serving for the match and why didn't go for the T serve ace is beyond me and he serves 108 wide to djoker my god. Would you agree prime fed 2006 wins this match vs djoker in maybe in 4?

Federer I think will bounce back from this. His level is still great enough to anyone inlcuding this djokovic who likely won't keep this level bc physically its already getting to him and taking a toll. As for Fed, I hope he switches to a larger frame to get more pop on his forehand and backahand going forward. Federer at least finally converted some damn break point opportunities. Next year should be great for tennis and if fed keeps his level he will have chances vs djokovic at wimbledon and french provided he gets to the semi there and of course they will be in the same half even if fed is ranked 4th.

Djokovic will likely has or will have even more physical issues following a 3 slam win this year... see nadal.

mark73
09-12-2011, 01:48 AM
nah fed is on the upswing. We all know players peak at 45 and are at their worst at 24, 25.:smash:

SetSampras
09-12-2011, 01:56 AM
I have only seen post 2009 fed chokes:
1. AO 2009: served terrible, should not have lost this to nadal
2. del potro 2009 us open
3. tsonga montreal 5-1 third
4. tsonga wibledon 2011
5. Djoko us 2011 40-15

Hey setsampras. Were you at all impressed with fed playing Djoker at this us open 2011... I thought he played well brilliantly the first two sets and he caused djokovic not to have a rythym. Props to djokoer for fighting back. I was for sure fed would get killed in that final set but props to him to get it as close as he did and honestly 99/100 he wouldn't lose 40-15 serving for the match and why didn't go for the T serve ace is beyond me and he serves 108 wide to djoker my god. Would you agree prime fed 2006 wins this match vs djoker in maybe in 4?

Federer I think will bounce back from this. His level is still great enough to anyone inlcuding this djokovic who likely won't keep this level bc physically its already getting to him and taking a toll. As for Fed, I hope he switches to a larger frame to get more pop on his forehand and backahand going forward. Federer at least finally converted some damn break point opportunities. Next year should be great for tennis and if fed keeps his level he will have chances vs djokovic at wimbledon and french provided he gets to the semi there and of course they will be in the same half even if fed is ranked 4th.

Djokovic will likely has or will have even more physical issues following a 3 slam win this year... see nadal.

Extremely impressed with Fed those first two sets. Where he went the next two sets Im not sure. He certainly wasn't in the stadium. I thought its as though he just rested for the 4th set to make a run at Nole in the 5th.. Very stupid strategy IMO. You put the match away before your opponent gets in a groove. As the match goes on, Nole is like Nadal, he just gets better. You have to end when you are bludgeoning them to death. Im not sure if Fed will bounce back.. For sure he still has the game, but unfortunately, Nadal and Nole just have the bigger game at this point and I think as long as those two are around, Fed is going to have to sidestep them to winner another major. But he isn't getting any younger, with each year its only going to get tougher for him.


Yea I can't see Nole dominating to this extent next year.. But the thing is Nole has learned to win when he isn't playing his best. The mark of a great player. So I dunno.. Next year will be interesting.

For slams next year I will go with :

AO: Nole
French: Nadal
Wimbledon: Nadal
USO: Fed or Nole

Egreen
09-12-2011, 02:30 AM
A prime Federer doesn't lose back to back Majors from 2 sets up. He hasn't had the same motivation since he become a dad. It's understandable.

Players that are dads have only won 1 slam in the past 20 years or so.


Andres Gomez French Open 1990
Boris Becker Australian Open 1996
Petr Korda Australian Open 1998
Yevgeny Kafelnikov Australian Open 1999
Albert Costa French Open 2002
Andre Agassi Australian Open 2003
Roger Federer Australian Open 2010

All of them only won 1 slam as fathers. :shrug:

Fed already won his slam as a dad.

rickcastle
09-12-2011, 02:32 AM
LOL. Anyone who denies Federer has declined is delusional. No way that 2004-2007 Federer would've lost that match with Djokovic. He wouldn't won it in straights.

Egreen
09-12-2011, 03:03 AM
LOL. Anyone who denies Federer has declined is delusional. No way that 2004-2007 Federer would've lost that match with Djokovic. He wouldn't won it in straights.

Agree.

juan27
09-12-2011, 03:15 AM
I would have to disagree and say Fed has no doubt declined (I think its not as drastic as people want to have u believe but it is because the guy is still making QF, Semis, Finals CONSISTENTLY) If he was truly declined he wouldnt have such good results slam wise.. The decline has been slow, certainly not fast. And thats mainly because he never seems to get injured. Hes one of them lucky birds.

Having said that.. I still don't believe even Fed AT HIS PEAK would be #1 with Nole and Nadal around. So it doesn't matter. Fed never had what u would call great clutchness or mental toughness.. He had it but to the point others have had. Nole is a mental monster now, Nadal has always been. These guys would never yeild to the FedEXpress and they have more talent by light years as opposed to Fed's contemporaries.

Both of these guys would have taken a SHIT TON of slams away from Roger during the years he amassed the majority of his (04-07). They both have something Fed hates.. Mental toughness, movement, and supreme talent. Fed with his 3 slams a year? You can forget about that with a peak Nole and prime Rafa around


So in that respect yea.. Fed came at the perfect time (Post Pete and Andre, and pre Peak-Prime Nadal and Nole) Not to say he wouldn't have slams, but nowhere near what he has now.

jajajajaja this is pure bullshit!!!

federer in his peak would be nš1 with nole and nadal around??????

this is insane, if this past peak federer won peak nole and in us open force the serbian to limits and with match points, if he is in his peak , much more can defeat this nole and past his peak federer defeat anybody in masters cup 2010 too.

federer had a very good physicall condition, in his prime he was much more faster and he had great defenses too , he speed of footwork was the key of his amazing tennis and had good reflexes too.

now , he lost that speed of footwork , reflexes and reaction , his physicall condition is going down and he faces two bests in terms of pysicall condition and much more youngers!!!!

federer lost many things , incluiding his forehand is more weak than before and the serve is not the same that in federer`s prime even the courts are more slows that in roger`s prime ( australia, masters cup, us open, grass)

houtanko
09-12-2011, 03:19 AM
I watched Federer in every game of the Open and I genuinely think it was Vintage Federer from a couple of years back, He started off slowly against Giraldo but made it look really easy just way too much class for the Argentine.

The Match against Tsonga just goes to show he makes a big step up on those big occasions and probably played the most flawless tennis I've seen him play ever against Monaco who isn't a bad player at all hence why he got to the 4th round.

I just believe two much younger players in Djokovic and Nadal are just faster, more athletic; generally a touch better then Federer but I don't recall him losing to anyone of a lesser class ever; He has made the Quarters or a grand slam (at least) since the French open in 2004; Is just and has been Mr Consistent for a long time now, I don't believe he has lost much consistency at all.

I was just heartbroken at him losing to Djokovic; I think a year or two a go against the same opponent at his same peak of his powers, He would of went on with it and won it in 3 sets. But as much as I hate Djokovic he is just a champion Tennis player and he looks to become the 10's dynasty, If anything a bit of mentality has been lost from Federer's game. That can affect any unforced errors he makes but other then that I think we have the Same Federer from 2007 through to 2009.

I think Federer has the class in him to win another grand slam, There's only two players that stand in the way of that in the world and I think there is a ridiculous class drop between Federer and Andy Murray. I can only see one of three men winning a grand slam singles title within the next 12 months.

are u sure federer is same? LOL. Nowadays tired after 1 1/2 sets and stop playing. Lots of errors, poor balance compared to 2005. Hits soft, not motivated to move vigorously on court.

SetSampras
09-12-2011, 03:23 AM
jajajajaja this is pure bullshit!!!

federer in his peak would be nš1 with nole and nadal around??????

this is insane, if this past peak federer won peak nole and in us open force the serbian to limits and with match points, if he is in his peak , much more can defeat this nole and past his peak federer defeat anybody in masters cup 2010 too.

federer had a very good physicall condition, in his prime he was much more faster and he had great defenses too , he speed of footwork was the key of his amazing tennis and had good reflexes too.

now , he lost that speed of footwork , reflexes and reaction , his physicall condition is going down and he faces two bests in terms of pysicallondition and much more youngers!!!!

federer lost many things , incluiding his forehand is more weak than before and the serve is not the same that in federer`s prime even the courts are more slows that in roger`s prime ( australia, masters cup, us open, grass)


Bullshit.. Well lets see.. Fed in general has not been able to handle Nadal.. Thats just the facts!! Nadal has ALWAYS had the mental advnatage over Fed ever since he was a pup. We factor in prime Nadal who finally became a force outside of clay, and Fed would have to contend with Nadal all around the circuit, not just clay. Fed's serve and FH looked just fine to me yesterday. I dunno what you are talking about. Nole finally free of his mental demons, his 10 times the oppoisition he was prior. I dunno how you can say for sure Fed would be a sure #1 at his peak against these guys.

What are u basing this on? Oh his domination over 90 year old Andre, Davydenko, Hewitt and Roddick, Gonzales, and Baghaditis? Prime-Peak Nadal and Nole are in a different galaxy then that oppoisition

abraxas21
09-12-2011, 03:27 AM
Bullshit.. Well lets see.. Fed in general has not been able to handle Nadal.. Thats just the facts!! Nadal has ALWAYS had the mental advnatage over Fed ever since he was a pup

true but federer still beat nadal in five sets in wimby '07. you need to put things into perspectiv: federer is a bit of a choker but he's not a complete choking clown some people think. by the same token, nadal is a big fighter but he's not the spartan warrior his tards like to think he is.

outside of clay, federer had nadal's number when he was in his prime.

houtanko
09-12-2011, 03:33 AM
Bullshit.. Well lets see.. Fed in general has not been able to handle Nadal.. Thats just the facts!! Nadal has ALWAYS had the mental advnatage over Fed ever since he was a pup. We factor in prime Nadal who finally became a force outside of clay, and Fed would have to contend with Nadal all around the circuit, not just clay. Fed's serve and FH looked just fine to me yesterday. I dunno what you are talking about. Nole finally free of his mental demons, his 10 times the oppoisition he was prior. I dunno how you can say for sure Fed would be a sure #1 at his peak against these guys.

What are u basing this on? Oh his domination over 90 year old Andre, Davydenko, Hewitt and Roddick, Gonzales, and Baghaditis? Prime-Peak Nadal and Nole are in a different galaxy then that oppoisition

sampras hardcore fan? prime Federer > Nadal outside clay

juan27
09-12-2011, 03:34 AM
Bullshit.. Well lets see.. Fed in general has not been able to handle Nadal.. Thats just the facts!! Nadal has ALWAYS had the mental advnatage over Fed ever since he was a pup. We factor in prime Nadal who finally became a force outside of clay, and Fed would have to contend with Nadal all around the circuit, not just clay. Fed's serve and FH looked just fine to me yesterday. I dunno what you are talking about. Nole finally free of his mental demons, his 10 times the oppoisition he was prior. I dunno how you can say for sure Fed would be a sure #1 at his peak against these guys.

What are u basing this on? Oh his domination over 90 year old Andre, Davydenko, Hewitt and Roddick, Gonzales, and Baghaditis? Prime-Peak Nadal and Nole are in a different galaxy then that oppoisition

fed`s serve and fh now is very different thay in his prime, if you really see tennis, you must be noted this!!!

his speed of footwork and speed of movements too going down , with only see the lateral movements of roger you can see that , federer will changes his racket to win more powerful shots and a little more of speed, you know that????

nole free of mental demons???? jajaja, the field now is bullshit, the only real competition that nole has is nadal, the rest of the field is patetic and with a declined federer , the top-10 is a really joke, even that agassi can be nš4 or 5 now with mugs like monfils or almagro in the top10, that players were better than this mugs.

nadal never faces a prime federer in hard courts and nole was defeated every time by a paste peak federer , even he was defeated by theses man in his peak and record year, and you say that he can`t be nš1 if he is in his prime????????? it`s irracional boy

SetSampras
09-12-2011, 03:46 AM
true but federer still beat nadal in five sets in wimby '07. you need to put things into perspectiv: federer is a bit of a choker but he's not a complete choking clown some people think. by the same token, nadal is a big fighter but he's not the spartan warrior his tards like to think he is.

outside of clay, federer had nadal's number when he was in his prime.

Well thats why I said Nadal in his prime.. Not Nadal in his clay prime and average to crap everywhere else. Its very plausible IMO to think even Prime-Peak Fed would NOT be #1 with this Nole and Nadal around:

1. Djokovic is a complete beast on slow hardcourts, where hes at his best, just as good, maybe better then Fed in the beginnng of the hardcourt season of the year
2. Nadal dominates clay, No chance for Fed there
3. Grass.. Prime Nadal when he finally learns to play on the green stuff gives peak-prime Fed fits on grass (see 07,08)
4. You have Nadal who has become a very good hardcourt player and due to the mental advantage can take him out on grass and hardcourts at either AO or the USO if they meet. And he would still have Djokovic to deal with, and with Nadal waiting in the wings.


Fed owns indoors of course. But again.. Plausible to think Fed would not be #1. He may have some brief stints at #1 but certainly not any long term run with it. If these are the two guys Fed has to deal with year after year around the circuit, his slam count IMO would be cut in half maybe more then that. They just are flat out BETTER opposition then Fed's main contemporaries of the 04-07 realm.

And while maybe the top 5-10 isn't as good today, you can argue as 03-07, the top 2 other guys are WAY better then any thing we saw 04-07.. And those are the two Fed would have to consistently deal with.

rocketassist
09-12-2011, 03:49 AM
Bullshit.. Well lets see.. Fed in general has not been able to handle Nadal.. Thats just the facts!! Nadal has ALWAYS had the mental advnatage over Fed ever since he was a pup. We factor in prime Nadal who finally became a force outside of clay, and Fed would have to contend with Nadal all around the circuit, not just clay. Fed's serve and FH looked just fine to me yesterday. I dunno what you are talking about. Nole finally free of his mental demons, his 10 times the oppoisition he was prior. I dunno how you can say for sure Fed would be a sure #1 at his peak against these guys.

What are u basing this on? Oh his domination over 90 year old Andre, Davydenko, Hewitt and Roddick, Gonzales, and Baghaditis? Prime-Peak Nadal and Nole are in a different galaxy then that oppoisition

Agassi, Hewitt and Roddick were all slam-winning world number ones. Add Safin to that and you have 13 GS between them. The same number as Nadal and Djokovic hold combined right now.

The courts were much faster as late as 2007 which is why all-out attackers like Gonzalez were making slam finals cause the defensive top players of today couldn't get it back in play.

And of course peak Fed would be number one now. His game was based around timing. When he started to get a bit older, his ground game declined because he wasn't timing the ball as crisply as he used to be, when he used to just blow players off the court with world class first-strike tennis.

houtanko
09-12-2011, 03:55 AM
xXjRhSuOu60


First strike tennis cant be stopped. Although djoker plays faster nowadays, I dont think its enough. He still lost balance against federer shots today. Federer lost some timing, used to play faster.

SetSampras
09-12-2011, 03:57 AM
Agassi, Hewitt and Roddick were all slam-winning world number ones. Add Safin to that and you have 13 GS between them. The same number as Nadal and Djokovic hold combined right now.

The courts were much faster as late as 2007 which is why all-out attackers like Gonzalez were making slam finals cause the defensive top players of today couldn't get it back in play.

And of course peak Fed would be number one now. His game was based around timing. When he started to get a bit older, his ground game declined because he wasn't timing the ball as crisply as he used to be, when he used to just blow players off the court with world class first-strike tennis.



Rocket are u seriously trying to argue that Old Agassi, On his way to breaking down Hewitt, and Show up once every 5 years headcase Safin over this Nadal (08-present) and Nole? I do believe Fed would reach #1 but I dunno how anyone can say with certainty that Fed could dominate by any stretch of the imagination with Nadal ( who ALWAYS gave him trouble and now primed on all surfaces, not just clay) and this Nole around. I just don't see it. And not because Im a Fed hater. But they are just superior players to any of them. Thats just how it is.

abraxas21
09-12-2011, 04:00 AM
Well thats why I said Nadal in his prime.. Not Nadal in his clay prime and average to crap everywhere else. Its very plausible IMO to think even Prime-Peak Fed would NOT be #1 with this Nole and Nadal around:

1. Djokovic is a complete beast on slow hardcourts, where hes at his best, just as good, maybe better then Fed in the beginnng of the hardcourt season of the year
2. Nadal dominates clay, No chance for Fed there
3. Grass.. Prime Nadal when he finally learns to play on the green stuff gives peak-prime Fed fits on grass (see 07,08)
4. You have Nadal who has become a very good hardcourt player and due to the mental advantage can take him out on grass and hardcourts at either AO or the USO if they meet. And he would still have Djokovic to deal with, and with Nadal waiting in the wings.


Fed owns indoors of course. But again.. Plausible to think Fed would not be #1. He may have some brief stints at #1 but certainly not any long term run with it. If these are the two guys Fed has to deal with year after year around the circuit, his slam count IMO would be cut in half maybe more then that. They just are flat out BETTER opposition then Fed's main contemporaries of the 04-07 realm.

And while maybe the top 5-10 isn't as good today, you can argue as 03-07, the top 2 other guys are WAY better then any thing we saw 04-07.. And those are the two Fed would have to consistently deal with.

you're dealing with too much speculation and others can build similar card castles to fit their own favoritisms. at the end facts will retain much more power than subjective "what if" ideas, "maybe" concepts or "very plausible" thoughts.

Big_Juicy
09-12-2011, 04:01 AM
Djokovic was giving this "younger" and on a "higher incline" Federer problems when he was several years younger. What's not to say he wouldn't dominate this version of Federer, with his game today?

juan27
09-12-2011, 04:04 AM
Agassi, Hewitt and Roddick were all slam-winning world number ones. Add Safin to that and you have 13 GS between them. The same number as Nadal and Djokovic hold combined right now.

The courts were much faster as late as 2007 which is why all-out attackers like Gonzalez were making slam finals cause the defensive top players of today couldn't get it back in play.

And of course peak Fed would be number one now. His game was based around timing. When he started to get a bit older, his ground game declined because he wasn't timing the ball as crisply as he used to be, when he used to just blow players off the court with world class first-strike tennis.

yes men, but setsampras never understand , he`s hate over federer is irrational and proper of a fan boy , nothing more, never understand reasons...you can give all the arguments but he always contiunes talking bullshits against federer.

slows courts of now and the physcall decline of federer is the most important factor , in his prime his physcall and footwork were amazing and the courts were more faster than now.

setsampras only talk about supossitions , if nadal or nole were in his prime when roger has his prime and bla bla bla, but only suppositions and zero arguments.

it`s pure logic, if this federer can defeat nole in his record year and forces him to the limit in uso open, primer federer not?????? is logic by god!!!!

SetSampras
09-12-2011, 04:04 AM
you're dealing with too much speculation and others can build similar card castles to fit their own favoritisms. at the end facts will retain much more power than subjective "what if" ideas or "very plausible" thoughts.

I watched Fed all through his prime-peak years, and I don't see ONE player that matches up to this Nadal or Nole in terms of consistency, talent, domination, or of high level (outside of an isolated Safin or Maybe Agassi here and there) etc. Would you care to rattle off some names from the 2003-2007 time period then are superior to those two currently? Would love to hear them :)

juan27
09-12-2011, 04:11 AM
I watched Fed all through his prime-peak years, and I don't see ONE player that matches up to this Nadal or Nole in terms of consistency, talent, domination, or of high level (outside of an isolated Safin or Maybe Agassi here and there) etc. Would you care to rattle off some names from the 2003-2007 time period then are superior to those two currently? Would love to hear them :)

would you care to rattle of some name from 2008-2011 time period in top10(withut nole or rafa) then are superiors to players of that period?????? would love o hear them :)

or give some name that can face rafa or nole???? without old federer of course.

these two are alones, the rest of the field is a disgrace and the only that faces competiton to nole is a past prime federer

SetSampras
09-12-2011, 04:14 AM
would you care to rattle of some name from 2008-2011 time period in top10(withut nole or rafa) then are superiors to players of that period?????? would love o hear them :)

or give some name that can face rafa or nole???? without old federer of course.

these two are alones, the rest of the field is a disgrace and the only that faces competiton to nole is a past prime federer

What does the top 10 have to do with it? I'm not saying the top 10 is stronger today (maybe it is maybe it isn't) the point is Nadal and Nole are FAR better and on a consistent basis at then anything Fed dealt with during that time period is all. Which only makes his staying at #1 and winning slams much harder then it was then.

juan27
09-12-2011, 04:27 AM
What does the top 10 have to do with it? I'm not saying the top 10 is stronger today (maybe it is maybe it isn't) the point is Nadal and Nole are FAR better and on a consistent basis at then anything Fed dealt with during that time period is all. Which only makes his staying at #1 and winning slams much harder then it was then.

mmmmmm ,let me see.

you tell me , which who the greatest rivals of sampras?????

because courier was a good player but not a crack, todd martin???? pioline?????? moya?????? ivanisevic??????? past prime becker??????

the only true rival that sampras had was agassi , but agassi is not better than nadal, andre never was consistent and mentally better opposition to sampras that nadal with federer that year by year was nš2 and push federer to win all ,andre was very inconsistent player and he was out of tennis like 1 or 2 years going down nš100!!!! and great part of matches were played in best surfaces for pete that for andre.

tell me , which of 90s players ( without agassi) were better than this nole????? because for me, nole is much better player than courier.

the 90s were very overrated , in the 90s were very good players and one really crack (sampras) but in these era are good players too and two really cracks ( federer and nadal, one of them the player who won 16 gs and the other the best clay player in history) and nole is in way to become another really crack making ono of the best or the best season in tennis history.....

this thing didn`t see in the 90s.

80s or 70s were much better in termos of competition ( connors, vilas, mcenroe,borgs.....)

SetSampras
09-12-2011, 04:29 AM
mmmmmm ,let me see.

you tell me , which who the greatest rivals of sampras?????

because courier was a good player but not a crack, todd martin???? pioline?????? moya?????? ivanisevic??????? past prime becker??????

the only true rival that sampras had was agassi , but agassi is not better than nadal, andre never was consistent and mentally better opposition to sampras that nadal with federer that year by year was nš2 and push federer to win all ,andre was very inconsistent player and he was out of tennis like 1 or 2 years going down nš100!!!! and great part of matches were played in best surfaces for pete that for andre.

tell me , which of 90s players ( without agassi) were better than this nole????? because for me, nole is much better player than courier.

the 90s were very overrated , in the 90s were very good players and one really crack (sampras) but in these era are good players too and two really cracks ( federer and nadal, one of them the player who won 16 gs and the other the best clay player in history) and nole is in way to become another really crack making ono of the best or the best season in tennis history.....

this thing didn`t see in the 90s.

80s or 70s were much better in termos of competition ( connors, vilas, mcenroe,borgs.....)



What does this have to do with Sampras? I merely pointed out the opposition at the top is FAR greater then what Fed dealt with during his time period. You Fed fans seem to think Prime Fed would dominate with Peak-Prime Nadal and Nole at the top. That Rich. :eek:

juan27
09-12-2011, 04:35 AM
What does this have to do with Sampras? I merely pointed out the opposition at the top is FAR greater then what Fed dealt with during his time period. You Fed fans seem to think Prime Fed would dominate with Peak-Prime Nadal and Nole at the top. That Rich. :eek:

ok , for me if sampras had been guys like federer or nadal (maybe nole too) with much better consistency that agassi , sampras never won 14 slams and 7 wimbledons.:wavey:

speculation like you.

Sophocles
09-12-2011, 04:40 AM
What does this have to do with Sampras? I merely pointed out the opposition at the top is FAR greater then what Fed dealt with during his time period. You Fed fans seem to think Prime Fed would dominate with Peak-Prime Nadal and Nole at the top. That Rich. :eek:

If by peak-prime Nadal you mean Nadal from 2008 onwards, that Nadal needed 5-set epics to see off an obviously declining Federer at Wimbledon & the A.O. Plus of course, that Nadal tends to lose to prime Djoker, whom peak Federer would beat more often than not. So I don't think Fed would have had any great difficulty in remaining at No. 1 or winning slams. In fact he'd probably have won the French more often with Djoker taking Nadal out.

The thread title bears no relation to the content of the original post, by the way.

rocketassist
09-12-2011, 04:42 AM
Djokovic was giving this "younger" and on a "higher incline" Federer problems when he was several years younger. What's not to say he wouldn't dominate this version of Federer, with his game today?

One Montreal final set TB and post 07, one AO semi win in 08, albeit Fed looked extremely jaded and wasn't moving to Djoker's DTL strikes.

Peak Fed would deal with Djoker easier than Nadal who's always been a simple bad match-up on any surface below medium pace.

FedvsNole
09-12-2011, 05:16 AM
I would have to disagree and say Fed has no doubt declined (I think its not as drastic as people want to have u believe but it is because the guy is still making QF, Semis, Finals CONSISTENTLY) If he was truly declined he wouldnt have such good results slam wise.. The decline has been slow, certainly not fast. And thats mainly because he never seems to get injured. Hes one of them lucky birds.

Having said that.. I still don't believe even Fed AT HIS PEAK would be #1 with Nole and Nadal around. So it doesn't matter. Fed never had what u would call great clutchness or mental toughness.. He had it but to the point others have had. Nole is a mental monster now, Nadal has always been. These guys would never yeild to the FedEXpress and they have more talent by light years as opposed to Fed's contemporaries.

Both of these guys would have taken a SHIT TON of slams away from Roger during the years he amassed the majority of his (04-07). They both have something Fed hates.. Mental toughness, movement, and supreme talent. Fed with his 3 slams a year? You can forget about that with a peak Nole and prime Rafa around


So in that respect yea.. Fed came at the perfect time (Post Pete and Andre, and pre Peak-Prime Nadal and Nole) Not to say he wouldn't have slams, but nowhere near what he has now.



One thing I might want to add about federer's slam counts. If peak fed, peak nole, peak rafa all were in the same era and age since we're talking fed's prime years 2004-2007. Lets make them all 23 for example and remember how the court speed was much faster in all those places includeing us open, wimbledon and genernally most hard courts so that also has to be kept noted this alone would keep federer most certainly #1 in rankings and at the very worst #2 and djokovic #1 in that case. I see federer winning just as many us opens and wimbledon's in this phase acutally given his prime phase and faster conditions at wimbledon and us open. What would be affected is his number of AO and french open titles. It's fair to say federer in prime form would at any given time be ranked 1 or 2 with djokic 1 or 2 making nadal third. Many times at the french open its fair to say djolovic and nadal would be in the same half and djokovic would knock out nadal in a fair share of those FO semi's and would lose to Fed in the finals so fed would probably have 3 or 4 french's but perhaps 1 or 2 less AO titles.

I still hold true that prime fed beats prime nole even at AO given how even this years past peak fed and current nole 2011 AO match was very close. But lets say fed wins 2 less AO titles in that span because of NOLE for sake of argument. I would give fed 2 or more french opens just from the chance that nole and rafa had a few semi finals at the french in those years and nole knocked out rafa and would lose to prime fed.

Now comes the interesting part. The 2008 year where fed had mono. The age nole, fed, and rafa are now is 28. We know the level fed played with illness throughout the year but lets pretend now fed even with the mono vs the nole and rafa he played at AO 2008 and wimbledon 2008 were 28 just like him. If rafa has not retired at this point he would not even make the finals and if he did would lose to federer in straights. The same physical demise would be of NOLE.

The 2009 us open if nole was still playing he may have knocked out del potro giving fed at the same age another us open title.

Bottom line. If all 3 were the same age during their peak years starting at 2004 and beyond where court conditions were faster federer would still win more or less the same or more wimbledons, us opens, a few less AO titles even though I believe he beats nole 9/10 there in prime form but for the sake of argument, and 2 or 3 french opens titles due to nole knocking out rafa in french semis. I also believe by 2009 nadal would be gone and fed would get more french titles and nole at this point would be retired or very close to at that time. Federe may have won a CYGS in 2010 or 2011 wiht NOLE and RAFA all being 29/30 or one or more of them retired.



P.S. I only know federer's equipment also existed in 2004 with his strings. Im very sure the equipemtn that nole and rafa use today did not exist in that time and rafa would not be having the topspin he has now during that phase.

-Also Novak's CVAC POD did not exist at that time.

Acer
09-12-2011, 08:22 AM
A 30 year old man who is clearly a step slower than he was at 24 cannot be playing the same way he did at his peak. There's nothing more to discuss here.

Mimi
09-12-2011, 08:40 AM
he is still great, just not as good as he was at his peak, nothing to be ashamed of, even better than my old Pete when he was 30 :shrug:

don't know how can people still expect him to win as much titles as he was at 26/27, you just can't always win :shrug:

JolánGagó
09-12-2011, 11:30 AM
Night isn't dark, it lacks light.

tennis2tennis
09-12-2011, 11:50 AM
seriously how can anyone who watched Saturday's match walk away with anything but a conclusion that Roger's declining...he played careless tennis, hanked forehand's and misjudged his timing...had 24 year old Roger been playing Novak what are the odds he'd have lost that match?

Ljubo_rulz
09-12-2011, 12:23 PM
Declinerer has enough juice left for Olympics and USO next year. Then he'll retire.

ssin
09-12-2011, 12:33 PM
seriously how can anyone who watched Saturday's match walk away with anything but a conclusion that Roger's declining...he played careless tennis, hanked forehand's and misjudged his timing...had 24 year old Roger been playing Novak what are the odds he'd have lost that match?

Actually I was a bit surprised with Fed's level. If he manages to keep it up in 2012 he will well deserve another slam, no doubt.

People forget that while age might take away some things, it can also bring goods - such as experience and confidence. Fed's game has indeed depended on his great movement, but it was never physical in the vein of Nadal's game for example.

About the odds, if both players played as 24 year old players that would be quite a match, but let's not forget that Novak has that sort of respect for Federer that is not helping his game, if they were peers that effect would be gone entirely. it's all coulda-shoulda-woulda to me, I just want to say that things are not so simple as they may appear, there are too many things to consider.

juan27
09-12-2011, 01:41 PM
One thing I might want to add about federer's slam counts. If peak fed, peak nole, peak rafa all were in the same era and age since we're talking fed's prime years 2004-2007. Lets make them all 23 for example and remember how the court speed was much faster in all those places includeing us open, wimbledon and genernally most hard courts so that also has to be kept noted this alone would keep federer most certainly #1 in rankings and at the very worst #2 and djokovic #1 in that case. I see federer winning just as many us opens and wimbledon's in this phase acutally given his prime phase and faster conditions at wimbledon and us open. What would be affected is his number of AO and french open titles. It's fair to say federer in prime form would at any given time be ranked 1 or 2 with djokic 1 or 2 making nadal third. Many times at the french open its fair to say djolovic and nadal would be in the same half and djokovic would knock out nadal in a fair share of those FO semi's and would lose to Fed in the finals so fed would probably have 3 or 4 french's but perhaps 1 or 2 less AO titles.

I still hold true that prime fed beats prime nole even at AO given how even this years past peak fed and current nole 2011 AO match was very close. But lets say fed wins 2 less AO titles in that span because of NOLE for sake of argument. I would give fed 2 or more french opens just from the chance that nole and rafa had a few semi finals at the french in those years and nole knocked out rafa and would lose to prime fed.

Now comes the interesting part. The 2008 year where fed had mono. The age nole, fed, and rafa are now is 28. We know the level fed played with illness throughout the year but lets pretend now fed even with the mono vs the nole and rafa he played at AO 2008 and wimbledon 2008 were 28 just like him. If rafa has not retired at this point he would not even make the finals and if he did would lose to federer in straights. The same physical demise would be of NOLE.

The 2009 us open if nole was still playing he may have knocked out del potro giving fed at the same age another us open title.

Bottom line. If all 3 were the same age during their peak years starting at 2004 and beyond where court conditions were faster federer would still win more or less the same or more wimbledons, us opens, a few less AO titles even though I believe he beats nole 9/10 there in prime form but for the sake of argument, and 2 or 3 french opens titles due to nole knocking out rafa in french semis. I also believe by 2009 nadal would be gone and fed would get more french titles and nole at this point would be retired or very close to at that time. Federe may have won a CYGS in 2010 or 2011 wiht NOLE and RAFA all being 29/30 or one or more of them retired.



P.S. I only know federer's equipment also existed in 2004 with his strings. Im very sure the equipemtn that nole and rafa use today did not exist in that time and rafa would not be having the topspin he has now during that phase.

-Also Novak's CVAC POD did not exist at that time.

great post:)

peak nadal need 5 sets for defeat in australia and wimbledon past peak federer......and nole lost in rg and needed 5 sets to defeat 30 years old roger.....but setsampras say that in his peak never be nš1 with rafa and nole in are primes????:rolleyes::rolleyes:

but somepeople doesn`t remeber how good was federer in his prime, the federer of austrlian open 2007 or masters cup 2007 and all of 2004-2006 can destroy prime nole and nadal perfectly

zcess81
09-12-2011, 02:16 PM
Fed is technically the same player he was in his prime, but the difference is that the belief is not there anymore. It's all about belief at the very highest level. Back in his prime, when he was in big pressure moments, low percentage shots went in; now on big pressure moments he makes unforced errors. If Fed was not technically the same player he was in his prime, he wouldn't be able to comfortably beat 99% of the players on tour. He only consistently struggles against Nadal (which was always the case) and Nole. Sure, every now and then he gets beaten by the likes of Tsonga, Berdych and Murray, but he had such random losses even in his prime.

abraxas21
09-12-2011, 02:24 PM
Fed is technically the same player he was in his prime, but the difference is that the belief is not there anymore.

hmmm no

Ticker
09-12-2011, 02:26 PM
Federer was lucky because Nole was played carefully first two sets.When he let his hand,we know what happend in sets 3 and 4.If he played from beginning like that,Federer wouldn't ever push him to 5 sets.It will be something like in AO.

Sophocles
09-12-2011, 02:27 PM
Fed is technically the same player he was in his prime, but the difference is that the belief is not there anymore. It's all about belief at the very highest level. Back in his prime, when he was in big pressure moments, low percentage shots went in; now on big pressure moments he makes unforced errors. If Fed was not technically the same player he was in his prime, he wouldn't be able to comfortably beat 99% of the players on tour. He only consistently struggles against Nadal (which was always the case) and Nole. Sure, every now and then he gets beaten by the likes of Tsonga, Berdych and Murray, but he had such random losses even in his prime.

In his prime he wasn't having the kinds of losses he's had from 2008. Fish, Tsonga, Berdych, Soderling, Davydenko, Roddick (!), Stepanek, Wawrinka, all players he completely owned.

abraxas21
09-12-2011, 02:27 PM
I watched Fed all through his prime-peak years, and I don't see ONE player that matches up to this Nadal or Nole in terms of consistency, talent, domination, or of high level (outside of an isolated Safin or Maybe Agassi here and there) etc. Would you care to rattle off some names from the 2003-2007 time period then are superior to those two currently? Would love to hear them :)

you're asking all the wrong questions... keep your head in the discussion: if cats grew as big as tigers overnight, would they eat us?

zcess81
09-12-2011, 02:34 PM
In his prime he wasn't having the kinds of losses he's had from 2008. Fish, Tsonga, Berdych, Soderling, Davydenko, Roddick (!), Stepanek, Wawrinka, all players he completely owned.

Almost ALL the players you mentioned managed to get 1 WIN over him in space of 3 years! I mean, come on...Fed lost to lesser players even in his prime. Out of those players you mentioned, how many would be able to challenge current Fed consistantly? Only Tsonga...and even that's a maybe.

paseo
09-12-2011, 02:50 PM
Why yes. You're right Fed is not on the decline. In fact he's on the up. Watch him win the golden CYGS next year. Fed's gonna peak at 31!! Bring it on!!!:fiery::fiery::fiery:

abraxas21
09-12-2011, 02:55 PM
federer was just warming up when he won those 16 slams

watch out now. every true fan knows tennis players find their peak form at 40

MatchFederer
09-12-2011, 02:56 PM
Ridiculously stupid thread with some unbelievably unjustified and apparently uninformed opinions.

The one on Federer having random losses in his prime as if now is just a continuation of the good old days is especially hilarious and tragic.

The thread blows.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
09-12-2011, 03:05 PM
lendl said as he got older he lost a step

the basics were all there- the technique hadn't really changed
it was just that he was half a step slower- and all of a sudden he was losing matches he used to win

i think federer is going through this and has been since 2008- maybe even 2007

his resilience is a combination of amazing injury free play style- relaxed attitude- good conidtioning- self belief- and to an extent- a weak era that hasn't really challenged him

tektonac
09-14-2011, 02:39 AM
http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/09/13/idINIndia-59320120110913

Federer better than ever but so are rivals, says Wilander

(Reuters) - The good news for Roger Federer, according to former world number one Mats Wilander, is that he hasn't lost any of his skill and is playing as good as ever.

But the bad news for the Swiss maestro is that the opposition has improved as well and he needs to find a way past them to add to his record collection of 16 grand slams.

"There's no question he's better now than he's ever been," Wilander told Reuters in an interview. "He's just not winning."

Wilander said Federer's biggest problem was that his two greatest rivals, Novak Djokovic and Rafa Nadal, were now playing at a much high level than the rivals he was beating when he was scooping up grand slams at will.

"There's no question that Novak Djokovic is way better than the opposition he had four, five years ago," said the Swede.

"You have to take Novak Djokovic now and compare him to Andy Roddick at his best. Not even close. Lleyton Hewitt at his best? Not even close. And those are the guys he was beating in the finals and semi-finals."

Federer won the last of his titles at the 2010 Australian Open. This year was the first time he had gone through a season without winning at least one grand slam title since he broke through to capture his first in 2003.

But Wilander, who won seven majors between 1982 and 1988, said the 30-year-old Swiss had shown he was anything but a spent force, reaching the final at the French Open this year and coming with one point of beating eventual champion Djokovic at the U.S. Open, which ended Monday.

The pair slugged it out over five gripping sets in an enthralling match that could have gone either way. Federer had two match points in the fifth set but Djokovic survived them both and won the decider 7-5.

"The first two sets again Novak were the best I have ever seen from him," Wilander said.

"Djokovic is better this year than Nadal was last year and Nadal last year was better than anyone who ever played the game probably. They just get better, they really do."

The Swede, who won the Australian Open and French Open three times each and the U.S. Open once but never Wimbledon, said there was no comparison between the standard of play between his era and now but Federer was still the best ever.

"I think they're much better (now)," he said. "I think the state of the game is incredible, amazing.

"Is Roger the best of all time? "Yes, because he has 16. That's where it all ends. Sixteen majors makes you the best player of all time."

hisham70
09-14-2011, 04:37 AM
Nowadays, Federer has more important priorities than tennis. I'm stating the obvious.

yesh222
09-14-2011, 04:59 AM
To say Federer is as good now as he was in 2006 is foolish. Now, this Federer would probably have won 3 Slams in 2004 and 2006 too, but he has lost a tiny bit.

Timariot
09-14-2011, 08:05 AM
In his prime he wasn't having the kinds of losses he's had from 2008. Fish, Tsonga, Berdych, Soderling, Davydenko, Roddick (!), Stepanek, Wawrinka, all players he completely owned.

Exactly. One may be pressed to accept that Djokovic and Nadal have just surpassed Federer's level, but one can't seriously suggest that same is true for guys like Tsonga, Gasquet, Berdych, Meltzer (!)...

Sophocles
09-14-2011, 10:08 AM
Almost ALL the players you mentioned managed to get 1 WIN over him in space of 3 years! I mean, come on...Fed lost to lesser players even in his prime. Out of those players you mentioned, how many would be able to challenge current Fed consistantly? Only Tsonga...and even that's a maybe.

No, he never lost to Fish, Stepanek, Davydenko, Soderling, Wawrinka, Blake, or Roddick in his prime. He had 1 loss to Berdych out of - what? - 10, & now, lo & behold, Berdych seems to be beating him more often than not.

Farenhajt
09-14-2011, 11:11 AM
Federer can't be on a decline - the very notion is incompatible with him. He's a God of Tennis and Pretty Much Everything Else, relying on favors of Undeads such as Anna Wintour (for a fictional story inspired by facts, watch "Death Becomes Her").

Therefore all of his losses, and most notably the Canas Series, were strategic tanks and publicity stunts for a rapid increase in the circulation and profit.

The current situation in tennis is simply Federer's careful preparation of his "retirement". Yeah, like, he choked and squandered four match points against Djokovic two years in a row? :rolleyes: It was all act, baby, all act.

Hewitt =Legend
09-14-2011, 11:23 AM
It's a bit of both. End of thread.

oz_boz
09-16-2011, 06:07 AM
More than two players are on their way up since 2008 actually, among them are Blake, Bennetteau, Karlovic, Wawrinka esp. on clay, Falla esp. on grass, Hewitt, Gulbis, Montanes, Baghdatis...

Seriously: since 2007, Fed has declined, and Nadal and Djoko have increased their form, quite obvious if you ask me.

Jaz
09-16-2011, 06:31 AM
For sure, the Federer of 2006/2007 would have defeated Novak this year.

However, technically, his return of serve and serve has regressed. But his clay court performances are much much improved.

silverarrows
09-16-2011, 06:51 AM
Federer of 2005/2006 will beat Djokovic of 2011. I was just watching some video on YouTube a while ago. I notice every ball coming on Federer's forehand wing is destroyed. It's just an automatic winner. He's that good. I've never seen anything like that before. Federer has definitely declined without a doubt. He's not as quick like his movement in 2005/2006.

The Magician
09-16-2011, 08:24 AM
Federer of 2005/2006 will beat Djokovic of 2011. I was just watching some video on YouTube a while ago. I notice every ball coming on Federer's forehand wing is destroyed. It's just an automatic winner. He's that good. I've never seen anything like that before. Federer has definitely declined without a doubt. He's not as quick like his movement in 2005/2006.

Yeah this. Also his passing shots have probably declined the most, they always used to have the Federer funhouse on ESPN where they'd show his ridiculous shots and his sick half volley passing shots. Those have completely disappeared from his game and his old strategy of bringing guys to net is gone even though the top players now are even worse at net than during his prime. His defense has declined and really the only reason he stays competitive is his serve, his forehand which is still a good shot (but nothing like in his prime) and his all around game which can still run circles around todays 1 dimensional mugs.

Of course anyone who watched tennis then knows this, and even if you didn't you can go on youtube and watch clips of Fed in his prime. Fakertards and Nadulltards are just changing the past and making the present into the greatest era instead of the truth (biggest mug era in history) so as to justify destroying any variety in the game. Sometimes I think they are paid agents of the ATP because otherwise how could anyone actually enjoy watching a Nadull-Fakervic final at the USO where it takes 5 winner to win a point :o

juan27
09-16-2011, 12:13 PM
Federer of 2005/2006 will beat Djokovic of 2011. I was just watching some video on YouTube a while ago. I notice every ball coming on Federer's forehand wing is destroyed. It's just an automatic winner. He's that good. I've never seen anything like that before. Federer has definitely declined without a doubt. He's not as quick like his movement in 2005/2006.

the good old times.

nadal of 2008-2011 hasn`t competition in fast courts , only past peak federer was is opponent and anyway nadal needs of 5 sets to defeat that federer and nole 2.0 didn`t exist by that times , even the great nole of 2007 and parts of 2008 was gone and nadal has cero competition.

verdasco in australia semis , past peak and old youznhy in semis of usa open , safin in wimbledon 2008 and other many examples

when this nole comes, nadal was owned in fast courts because appears a prime player in fast courts and young too.

rubbERR
09-16-2011, 12:19 PM
Worst sh't ive ever heard, yes he is on decline, losing journeymans left and right.

sexybeast
09-16-2011, 02:24 PM
I guess Hewitt is not on the decline aswell as he has been challenging Federer more the last couple of years than during Feds prime.

oomph
10-12-2011, 03:53 AM
now and then I keep reading about how federer hasn't declined and how the field has gotten stronger. Can we put thgis argument finally to bed please?

is there still anyone stupid enough to believe that?

mark73
10-12-2011, 03:57 AM
Its a combination of the two. Nadal, Djokovic and Murray are better than fed's competition in his dominating years but there is no doubt that fed is well below his level
during his domination.

Topspindoctor
10-12-2011, 03:58 AM
Even as a hater, I have to say, Olderer is a clown compared to his peak. The only thing remotely resembling his old game is his serve.

That said, his competition was pretty clownish. Clownbandian, Baldenko and Mugrat "playboy" Safin :o as well as Duck and aging Drugassi :o

mark73
10-12-2011, 04:00 AM
I can't fucking vote because you left out the option 'both' in the poll.