Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,757 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
There are not many matches where fed actually has some of his athletic prime vs djoker and its arguable that end 2004-mid 2006 was fed's best physical form but really you can see how much movement fed had and how actually great his forehand was. Djokovic improved over the years but djoker had his movement and crazy defense along with his solid backhand and he actually would hit his forehand harder.


You can see how much athletic loss fed had in his future battles with nole.... he never again moved like he does in this video from aussie open 2007. Truly wish i could have seen them battle when fed had his athletic prime like below:

you just couldn't go to federer's forehand then even stetched out wide and his backhand was solid... he just didnt hit errors off that forehand.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,757 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
I have to admit that *0-1, 15-15 point was absurd.


My point is the only person who had an advantage from the baseline on fed was nadal on clay in his athletic prime.

Even in the video above, i could argue fed was better physically in end of 2003-2006 but still my point is we forget the movement fed had and it makes ALL the difference in rallies, getting to wide forehands, never missing forehands, always being solid on backhand rallies.

You can see the us open 2007-2015, novak keeps chipping away at fed's declining physicality. Fed is just a tennis genius that he could even keep it close in 2010 and 2011 where he could have easily won even then.

Its a pity fed didn't get to have most of his athletic prime and that great great forehand during his rivalry with novak.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,757 Posts
Discussion Starter #6 (Edited)
In decline since he was 25? Come on.

more in regards to djoker-fed match ups..

You can see a significant difference in their us open 2007-aussie open 2008-us open 2008 matches in fed's forehand and movement vs aussie 2007.

fed was 25.5 during the aussie 2007 match and their was def a decline from 25.5 to 27 for fed in athleticism for sure which is normal for athletes as the near 30.

Remember djoker in 2011 was 23-24 and you can clearly say that in 2014-2016 (djoker 26-27) while he was improving his game his athletic peak prime was not quite 2011-2012 going 5-6 hrs with murray/nadal back to back.

thats all i am saying.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
21,077 Posts
more in regards to djoker-fed match ups..

You can see a significant difference in their us open 2007-aussie open 2008-us open 2008 matches in fed's forehand and movement vs aussie 2007.

fed was 25.5 during the aussie 2007 match and their was def a decline from 25.5 to 27 for fed in athleticism for sure which is normal for athletes as the near 30.

Remember djoker in 2011 was 23-24 and you can clearly say that in 2014-2016 (djoker 26-27) while he was improving his game his athletic peak prime was not quite 2011-2012 going 5-6 hrs with murray/nadal back to back.

thats all i am saying.
Novak was 29 in 2016, not 27. Fed was even a bit of late bloomer, makes no sense to talk about his decline post-25, it would mean his peak was barely 2 years long.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,069 Posts
Oh blah blah blah

Fed himself said in 2017 he's a better player now than he was ten years ago.

Fed's dominance in 2004-2007 was due to one thing and one thing alone, that unutterable word on MTF and elsewhere .... rather than say weakera I'll just say no grown up Rafa or Djok yet. So bloody totally obvious, yet denial denial denial!!!

Djok neutralized Fed with his ROS and superior ground game. Fed's slightly faster movement when younger would make little difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,122 Posts
It's a shame Djokovic and Federer aren't the same age as Djokovic would have <3 majors if that was the case. Instead, he feasted on Roger's sharp physical decline past his 29th birthday.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,104 Posts
In decline since he was 25? Come on.
Nose has a very physical style of play. That's why he's body was a wreck by 25. Only through sheer will and love of the game was he able to play anoter 13-14 years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,515 Posts
Fed himself said in 2017 he's a better player now than he was ten years ago.
Do you always take Federer at his word?


Fed's dominance in 2004-2007 was due to one thing and one thing alone, [...]
Let me guess. Because he was a superb player at the peak of his powers? A player who was already being spoken of as the greatest ever as early as 2005. A player who motivated both Nadal and Djokovic to reach his level, making for an unprecedented era of domination by three contrasting yet equally driven and determined players, who are still the ones to beat despite being past their prime.

The "weak era" label was invented later as a convenient and lazy way of disparaging Federer's achievements, as well as downplaying the fact that he, like every player, reached a peak and then began to decline. Peak means peak, and Federer's was in 2004–2007. That he is still playing as well as he is indicates just how good he was in his physical prime.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,816 Posts
Oh blah blah blah

Fed himself said in 2017 he's a better player now than he was ten years ago.

Fed's dominance in 2004-2007 was due to one thing and one thing alone, that unutterable word on MTF and elsewhere .... rather than say weakera I'll just say no grown up Rafa or Djok yet. So bloody totally obvious, yet denial denial denial!!!

Djok neutralized Fed with his ROS and superior ground game. Fed's slightly faster movement when younger would make little difference.
If Nodal was not in the weakest clay era ever he would have been demolished by Kuerten, Courier, Agassi, Bruguera etc etc and would have been fortunate to even win I RG. Not to mention being hardly able to walk by now. Lucky, lucky Nodal in an era where everyone else couldn't be bothered with that rubbish surface.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
6,079 Posts
So by the time he turned 26 Federer already had too much "athletic loss" to be considered in his physical prime for this matchup, but Djokovic at 19 counts perfectly well as his prime even though he had plenty of development still to come? Enjoy the match all you want but framing it like that just looks desperate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,757 Posts
Discussion Starter #15 (Edited)
So by the time he turned 26 Federer already had too much "athletic loss" to be considered in his physical prime for this matchup, but Djokovic at 19 counts perfectly well as his prime even though he had plenty of development still to come? Enjoy the match all you want but framing it like that just looks desperate.

There's a reason most people were retiring in tennis at around 30 years old. A body at 20 years old which djokovic was is in its athletic prime. Yes, his stamina may improve which it did. But his reaction time and side to side to side speed is near peaking. A big difference occurs in those few years after 25.

look at nadal he was 25 years old in 2012... yet he was even better athletically 3-4 years prior to that. There was also a big difference in his athletics 2 years later when he was 27. There is no question your speed and reflexes are peaking prior to 25.

Same for sampras... he was notably faster until 25 (1997) vs 27-28 years old vs 1999-2000. He played different but there was for sure an athletic difference.

These aren't excuses. Its hard to play against someone 5 or 6 years younger than you from an athletic perspective once a certain age is reached in all sports.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
21,077 Posts
Gregor Schlierenzauer was 99% sure to become GOAT when he was 23, surpassed or equaled many records. He's won one World Cup event since.
Weren't his problems mostly mental + injuries? Not because he got old and physically declined.

Borg, J Mac, Becker...

Of course, decline can be tricky to define.
Yea, but those were over 30 years ago, not to mention Borg too had (mental) burnout issues and coupled with wooden racquets getting obsolete, not exactly the same situation as more recent times.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
956 Posts
This again? It's only been like 2 hours since the last big 3 discussion. Do you guys never get bored, do wack off to big 3 match re-runs or something?
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Top