Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 217 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,721 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Obviously Roger is not the player he used to be. But people using that as a way to insult him is bizarre! His peak ended in 2008 when he got mono yet he still won slams since then and just reached a slam final at the age of 32. How many players can say that? I just find it ridiculous that some people seem to insult him for not being as good as he used to be, of course he won't be at this age. But to consistently still be a top player, getting to number 1 in 2012, should be commended. 17 slams and he is still hungry for more. Even it if doesn't happen, I respect that he is still fighting with the top guys :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,396 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,616 Posts
Wrong. Fed wasn't at his peak 2007 anymore. Was great to see how 25-28 year old gradnpa fighting with all those youngsters proving why he is the GOAT.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
He turned 27 in 2008. There's a big difference between peak and prime. One could certainly argue that Federer was outside his peak in 2008.
Funny how Federer's decline coincides with the rise of the rest of the Big Four, particularly Nadal. If the Federer that played in the Wimbledon final Sunday had faced the same competition as ten years ago (someone like Roddick instead of Djokovic) he probably would have won.

I have a lot of respect for Federer's accomplishments, but I am in the camp that he benefitted from being a few years older than the rest of the Big Four and playing a lot tournaments without another prime all-time great in the draw.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
298 Posts
Either his peak end abruptly or nadal just matured. Not like he was losing to randos, so the latter seems more likely.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,630 Posts
Funny how Federer's decline coincides with the rise of the rest of the Big Four, particularly Nadal. If the Federer that played in the Wimbledon final Sunday had faced the same competition as ten years ago (someone like Roddick instead of Djokovic) he probably would have won.

I have a lot of respect for Federer's accomplishments, but I am in the camp that he benefitted from being a few years older than the rest of the Big Four and playing a lot tournaments without another prime all-time great in the draw.
Again his peak is not the same as his prime.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,648 Posts
Obviously Roger is not the player he used to be. But people using that as a way to insult him is bizarre! His peak ended in 2008 when he got mono yet he still won slams since then and just reached a slam final at the age of 32. How many players can say that? I just find it ridiculous that some people seem to insult him for not being as good as he used to be, of course he won't be at this age. But to consistently still be a top player, getting to number 1 in 2012, should be commended. 17 slams and he is still hungry for more. Even it if doesn't happen, I respect that he is still fighting with the top guys :)
Bolded part is right, but the main reason for it is not mono or age, it's tougher competition: Nadal, Djokovic and Murray peaking, even Del Potro in 2009.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
263 Posts
Federer's peak was like 2004-2007, but his prime was late 2003ish until the end of 2009/beginning of 2010. 2010 was when he started having the losses to Tsonga and Berdych and Soderling and players like that more often. Sure, Nadal had one of his best years in 2010, but Federer losing to Soderling at the French Open that year has nothing to do with Nadal starting to peak. And to say that during Federer's peak his competition wasn't strong is just plain wrong. Okay, he didn't have the rest of the big 4 in full flight yet, but is it his fault that he is a couple of years older? Some people act like he should have lost purposely until stronger opponents came along. Federer's main rivals during his prime where Roddick, Hewitt, younger Nadal, and you could argue Safin and Nalbandian too. All of these players would have achieved great things had Federer not been around, and people would be discussing Roddick-Hewitt-Nadal-Safin as the Big 4 of the mid-2000's. Obviously now Federer is not what he once was, but he still managed to take the best player in the world currently to 5 sets at the finals of Wimbledon. You guys seem to forget who Federer is pretty quickly, and to say that he is overrated or that Nadal is better is just dumb, but that's another discussion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,630 Posts
Either his peak end abruptly or nadal just matured. Not like he was losing to randos, so the latter seems more likely.
Bolded part is right, but the main reason for it is not mono or age, it's tougher competition: Nadal, Djokovic and Murray peaking, even Del Potro in 2009.
In 2008 he lost to Roddick for the first time since 2003. He also lost to Karlovic, Fish, Stepanek to name some of the names he usually didn't lose to.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
944 Posts
Federer never declined, his competition just got better.

He's still as good as he was in 2004-07 at almost 33 years old.

/Thread.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,721 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Federer never declined, his competition just got better.

He's still as good as he was in 2004-07 at almost 33 years old.

/Thread.
Good trolling bro. Peak Nadal is losing to the likes of injured Darcis and kid Kyrgios
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,564 Posts
Funny how Federer's decline coincides with the rise of the rest of the Big Four, particularly Nadal. If the Federer that played in the Wimbledon final Sunday had faced the same competition as ten years ago (someone like Roddick instead of Djokovic) he probably would have won.

I have a lot of respect for Federer's accomplishments, but I am in the camp that he benefitted from being a few years older than the rest of the Big Four and playing a lot tournaments without another prime all-time great in the draw.
I'm not a Federer fan by any stretch of the imagination, but it boggles my mind how people fail to realize that the same players they put down as weak competition for peak Federer had significant success against the "cream" of today. That same Roddick had no trouble beating both Nadal and Djokovic well past his own prime. It was only Federer who he could not beat time and time again.

If the slams he won do not convince you how scary good he played, take a look at the AO 05 semi against Safin to see what kind of performance was required to beat him as a rule. Alternatively, consider the fact that even declined he could still beat Murray and Djokovic in slams. If they were of Federer's generation, the likely scenario is that, while they would perhaps snatch an odd slam from him, they themselves would have fewer then they have now when they are not competing with prime Federer. So, in essence, it's disputable who's lucky.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
And to say that during Federer's peak his competition wasn't strong is just plain wrong. Okay, he didn't have the rest of the big 4 in full flight yet, but is it his fault that he is a couple of years older?
I'm not saying it's his "fault" the competition wasn't as tough. I'm just saying that it wasn't and I don't see how anyone can argue otherwise. I don't think anyone here would say a Roddick, Hewitt, Safin trio is anywhere near as good as Nadal, Djokovic and Murray.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,858 Posts
Funny how Federer's decline coincides with the rise of the rest of the Big Four, particularly Nadal. If the Federer that played in the Wimbledon final Sunday had faced the same competition as ten years ago (someone like Roddick instead of Djokovic) he probably would have won.

I have a lot of respect for Federer's accomplishments, but I am in the camp that he benefitted from being a few years older than the rest of the Big Four and playing a lot tournaments without another prime all-time great in the draw.
Theres no question that Federers early grandslam years 2003--2006 were a gift. And without question, had Nadal and Djokovic, even Murray all happened two or three years earlier. Federer most certainly wouldn't have 17 slams. Probably 10--12. But there's nothing we can do about that now.

That said, that is the prime reason I give Nadal so much respect. He has claimed 14 slams in the most competitive era in Tennis history. It's beyond belief when you think about it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,858 Posts
Federer never declined, his competition just got better.

He's still as good as he was in 2004-07 at almost 33 years old.

/Thread.
No he isn't, get real. He has lost some power and pace.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,430 Posts
federer not lost when nadal matured , in 2008 he was losing against guys like roddick , fish , blake and other than federer destroyed easily.
 
1 - 20 of 217 Posts
Top