Was Federer better in 2006? (Poll added)

by Tenez Sat 24 Sep 2011, 10:27 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOQp62NI2_I

I don't think so! His today's shots are actually better, more agressive, including his FH. It might be that it seemed windy that day and he tried to keep the ball in court so used a lot of spin. But in general I find his shots today smoother, his BH slice for instance is more elegant. His shot selection is also better now. You can tell he has learnt to play Nadal...over the last few years. The problem is that Nadal got even stronger.

by Liam_Main Sat 24 Sep 2011, 10:33 pm

I think his BH is pretty similar now to what it was in 2006. His FH looks a lot stronger now though.

by Liam_Main Sat 24 Sep 2011, 10:38 pm

His backhand off the serve looks more improved now.

by **laverfan** Sat 24 Sep 2011, 11:22 pm

Holding the ball for a split second and wrong-footing Rafa many-a-time. But he did miss some passing shots, but did get a couple of good stab volleys. Cool

by noleisthebest Sat 24 Sep 2011, 11:25 pm

I think his opposition was worse which made him look better. Nothing stopping him playing the same now, except that Nole, Murray and Nadal are no Hewitt, Baghdatis and Ljubicic.

by noleisthebest Sat 24 Sep 2011, 11:31 pm

I think Federer played lights out in RG knocking out Nole (with the little help of Foegneighni Laugh

) and that his tennis actually better now, except he is simpy not allowed to impose his game like in the past, which is a testament to how good this generation is.

by droogle Sat 24 Sep 2011, 11:37 pm

His footwork and ability to improvise was better in 2006, the latter being based on the former.

by droogle Sat 24 Sep 2011, 11:41 pm

3:34, the backhand passing shot attempt, I haven't seen him working those kinds of amazing angles since the 2010 WTF.

by **laverfan** Sat 24 Sep 2011, 11:42 pm

Federer is slower now, but still has amazing footwork.

by droogle Sat 24 Sep 2011, 11:47 pm

This is better:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp_IJ1A63ss

by Jeremy_Kyle Sat 24 Sep 2011, 11:51 pm

noleisthebest wrote:I think his opposition was worse which made him look better. Nothing stopping him playing the same now, except that Nole, Murray and Nadal are no Hewitt, Baghdatis and Ljubicic.

I like in particular the bit evidenced in bold. Just make me think you know close to nothing about tennis before your hero started to play. You really believe that in tennis a 30 yrs old can perform as effectively as a 25 yrs old? Headscratch

Speachless.

by noleisthebest Sun 25 Sep 2011, 12:03 am

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:I think his opposition was worse which made him look better. Nothing stopping him playing the same now, except that Nole, Murray and Nadal are no Hewitt, Baghdatis and Ljubicic.

I like in particular the bit evidenced in bold. Just make me think you know close to nothing about tennis before your hero started to play. You really believe that in tennis a 30 yrs old can perform as effectively as a 25 yrs old?

Speachless.

Ooooh, touched the raw nerve did I....

by Chazfazzer Sun 25 Sep 2011, 12:07 am

I've gotta say that I disagree with people saying that any aspect of Federer's game now is better than it was 5 years ago (can't believe it's that long ago!). In this clip he may only be playing Davydenko, but I think Federer was pretty much tennis perfection here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7U2N3ZlD-M

His shots are just so smooth; his forehand powerful and more spinny than today, still doing the damage but without the periods where it goes AWOL like we see today. His backhand was also amazing, and his movement was obviously far superior to what it is today.

by Guest Sun 25 Sep 2011, 12:22 am

Tenez,

Are you and Wilander the same person by any chance? You two must be the only two people in the world who think Fed is a better player than he used to be in his heyday; and we all know Wilander has never been the biggest fan of Roger. How many players have been better at age 30 than at age 25? Not many, especially a player like Fed who has so much mileage.

Your choice of match was a poor one, considering the wind on that day. Also Nadal has always made Fed look bad because of the match up.

Fed was a better player then because of one main reason which effects his entire game: movement.

He was faster and had better footwork.

Thus his defense was better

His FH was more explosive, and he was better able to get into position to hit the inside out and dtl FH. He could also protect his BH better for the same reason. Overall he was more offensive with his FH.

He made fewer unforced errors, less shanks, again because he was in position earlier to execute. Just have a look at some of the UE stats for his matches in that period. Sometimes he'd go whole matches with just 10 UE; nowadays if he makes 10 UE's in a set it's considered to be a 'clean' set.

His volleys and net game was more deft.

His transition game was better.

He had better stamina.

He was more clutch on the big points, ie mentally stronger.

Of course, his consistency week in, week out was also better.

His serve has improved (but declined from 2009 when it was at it's peak) and he's added a FH drop shot; they're about the only improvements that I can see from 2006.

Of course at times he can play on a level similar to 2006, but overall he has clearly declined.

Just a few matches from that period (and there are many to choose from). You can see how much sharper he was back then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XOBP3N1ejc&feature=related v Nalby Masters Cup 2005

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqG-PpP7H0s v Gasquet W 2006 (note his BH)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ikx0Du735Y V Roddick AUS 07 (note the FH and movement)

by droogle Sun 25 Sep 2011, 12:33 am

Fed is more economical now and he has less to spend, sort of thing.

by Tenez Sun 25 Sep 2011, 12:43 am

noleisthebest wrote:I think his opposition was worse which made him look better. Nothing stopping him playing the same now, except that Nole, Murray and Nadal are no Hewitt, Baghdatis and Ljubicic.

Murray, DJoko and Rafa retrieve more balls which forces Federer to play a different game. I find the shot making ability of Rafa, Murray and Djoko actually not as good as some of the players then )Nalbandian, Safin, Davydenko...). But they can retrieve more balls and are able to whack it from outside the trameline. This is a recent phenomenon in tennis that was not possible in 2003. Tennis then was about keeping the centre of the court. Now if you are fit enough being in the doubles lines actually gives you an advantage as it offers angle you could not find or at a very risky rate.

by Tenez Sun 25 Sep 2011, 12:49 am

Chazfazzer wrote:I've gotta say that I disagree with people saying that any aspect of Federer's game now is better than it was 5 years ago (can't believe it's that long ago!). In this clip he may only be playing Davydenko, but I think Federer was pretty much tennis perfection here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7U2N3ZlD-M

His shots are just so smooth; his forehand powerful and more spinny than today, still doing the damage but without the periods where it goes AWOL like we see today. His backhand was also amazing, and his movement was obviously far superior to what it is today.

Well back then he had his moments of genius as well. But there in this clip he is playing a ball he knows very well. Flat, pacy and low bounce. He thrives on those, even today. Just watch his last match v Davydenko this year in Doha, he is as good if not better than in that clip. It's handling the likes of Nadal, Murray and Djoko (in particular Rafa) that is the challenge and to me he times the ball better now than then.

by noleisthebest Sun 25 Sep 2011, 12:58 am

Tenez wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:I think his opposition was worse which made him look better. Nothing stopping him playing the same now, except that Nole, Murray and Nadal are no Hewitt, Baghdatis and Ljubicic.

Murray, DJoko and Rafa retrieve more balls which forces Federer to play a different game. I find the shot making ability of Rafa, Murray and Djoko actually not as good as some of the players then )Nalbandian, Safin, Davydenko...). But they can retrieve more balls and are able to whack it from outside the trameline. This is a recent phenomenon in tennis that was not possible in 2003. Tennis then was about keeping the centre of the court. Now if you are fit enough being in the doubles lines actually gives you an advantage as it offers angle you could not find or at a very risky rate.

" Tennis then was about keeping the centre of the court. "

so what's more difficult, keeping the centre or the entire court? Nole is a fantastic shotmaker btw, but the game is always above shot-making which why it is so attractive and versatile. The fact that Federer has been able to pull it off with pure shot-making for so long is quite amazing.

by Tenez Sun 25 Sep 2011, 1:02 am

emancipator wrote:Tenez,

Are you and Wilander the same person by any chance? You two must be the only two people in the world who think Fed is a better player than he used to be in his heyday; and we all know Wilander has never been the biggest fan of Roger. How many players have been better at age 30 than at age 25? Not many, especially a player like Fed who has so much mileage.
He made fewer unforced errors, less shanks, again because he was in position earlier to execute. Just have a look at some of the UE stats for his matches in that period. Sometimes he'd go whole matches with just 10 UE; nowadays if he makes 10 UE's in a set it's considered to be a 'clean' set.

His volleys and net game was more deft.

His transition game was better.

He had better stamina.

He was more clutch on the big points, ie mentally stronger.

Of course, his consistency week in, week out was also better.

His serve has improved (but declined from 2009 when it was at it's peak) and he's added a FH drop shot; they're about the only improvements that I can see from 2006.

Of course at times he can play on a level similar to 2006, but overall he has clearly declined.

Just a few matches from that period (and there are many to choose from). You can see how much sharper he was back then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XOBP3N1ejc&feature=related v Nalby Masters Cup 2005

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqG-PpP7H0s v Gasquet W 2006 (note his BH)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ikx0Du735Y V Roddick AUS 07 (note the FH and movement)

Didn't know Wilander thought so too but I am not surprised.

The idea that because you are 30 yuo are old is wrong. At 30 you don;t recover as well from the previous match that's for sure but if he is fresh, there is very little you could see between a 27yo and 30. Didn't linford Christie beat his 100m record at 32? Didn't Ljubo win his first TMS at 31? Hasn't stepanek reached his highest ranking at 31 or 32? What about Agasi winning his biggest share of slams after 30?

I certainly can see that Federer is more fragile in terms of recovery but that is also because the matches are more violent now than then.

Just open your eyes, and see how dismisses his 2003-07 opponents with more ease now than then. He loses more often now cause he doesn't want to spend too much energy outside slams, but in slams he is still pretty good.

by noleisthebest Sun 25 Sep 2011, 1:03 am

Also, Nadal is the guy who brought an end to the shot-making era of Federer and stuffed him mentally.
Now Novak's on the scene, as well; for me, it was quite telling that Federer chose to call The Shot "lucky", possibly easiest for him to accept it as otherwise it would've stuffed him again but from a different angle.
Federer has got his own bubble and system of tennis thinking and carrying on and the fact that Nadal was able to burst that bubble has brought an end to Federer's original style of play, he has lost the intuitive instinct and is now "working" his game.

by Tenez Sun 25 Sep 2011, 1:05 am

noleisthebest wrote:so what's more difficult, keeping the centre or the entire court? Nole is a fantastic shotmaker btw, but the game is always above shot-making which why it is so attractive and versatile. The fact that Federer has been able to pull it off with pure shot-making for so long is quite amazing.

Nole can play great shots but that's not what wins him the matches, except versus Federer in teh last 2 USOs. He wins matches by retrieving and more so by being able to pull a winner or turn defense into attack while actually being in difficult position. This to me is more physical prowess than shot making ability.

by Tenez Sun 25 Sep 2011, 1:08 am

noleisthebest wrote:Federer has got his own bubble and system of tennis thinking and carrying on and the fact that Nadal was able to burst that bubble has brought an end to Federer's original style of play, he has lost the intuitive instinct and is now "working" his game.

I actually think ha has been working hard lately trying to retrieve his instinct and stopped rallying like Nadal. I prefer his tennis now than then. I feel he has more chance v the like of Rafa and new Djoko than he woudl have had 3 years ago.

by Chazfazzer Sun 25 Sep 2011, 1:10 am

I don't think Federer handles Nadal any better now than he did then really...he beat Nadal in Shanghai in 06 and 07, had match points against him in Rome in 06 and pushed him reasonably close in the French Open finals in 06 and 07. It's been a similar story recently, although Federer's battering in Miami has stuck in my mind; he made a lot of errors in that match and pretty much just capitulated. There have been certain matches Federer's played this year where I think an 06/07 version of himself would have pummelled the current version.

by Tenez Sun 25 Sep 2011, 1:13 am

I would like to invite you to other videos, in particular the FO semi 2005 v Nadal. Nadal was really poor then. Yet Fed can't handle him. His BHs and FHs UEs are ridiculously high. No way today's Federer woudl lose to that Rafa with balls landing just over the net.

by Tenez Sun 25 Sep 2011, 1:16 am

It's like I hear a lot of people saying Nadal is not as good as last year. BS!!! He is much better actually. The difference is that there is an even better player out there.

As a fan of Federer, I would love to be able to say that today;s Fed is half of yesterday. But that that day hasn;t arrived and to me he is simply a more slid player now.

by Guest Sun 25 Sep 2011, 3:30 am

The idea that because you are 30 yuo are old is wrong. At 30 you don;t recover as well from the previous match that's for sure but if he is fresh, there is very little you could see between a 27yo and 30. Didn't linford Christie beat his 100m record at 32? Didn't Ljubo win his first TMS at 31? Hasn't stepanek reached his highest ranking at 31 or 32? What about Agasi winning his biggest share of slams after 30?

I certainly can see that Federer is more fragile in terms of recovery but that is also because the matches are more violent now than then.

Just open your eyes, and see how dismisses his 2003-07 opponents with more ease now than then. He loses more often now cause he doesn't want to spend too much energy outside slams, but in slams he is still pretty good..

----------------------------------

Tenez PLEASE READ THIS VERY CAREFULLY. Your views on everything are so entrenched that it's virtually impossible to engage you in any kind of constructive discussion, hence I'm going to write this one reply and one only, just to vindicate my point of view. I'll allow the more discerning of the posters to determine their own minds thereafter.

It is a truism that a 30yr old, by the law of averages, is not going to be as fast, as fit, or as athletically gifted as a 25yr old. There are some exceptions to this general rule and all of the examples that you stated are merely that. The history of tennis bears this out. There have been very few slam winners or world number ones after the age of 30. The VAST majority of players peak around their early to mid twenties.

With regards to Fed 'dismissing his contemporaries with more ease than he used to', then you need to provide some objective evidence of this. From my own subjective memory, I recall Federer beating Davy, Hewitt, and Soderling for more than 10 consecutive matches each, spanning over 2003-2009 (I'm sure someone can pull out the exact stats) before finally losing to all three of them in 2010. Does that sound like a guy who's dealing better now with players that he used to own? In any case, even if it is true that he is dismissing his contemporaries with more ease than previously, surely that is just an indication of their further decline relative to his? Furthermore, it used to be a huge shock to see Roger lose to anyone other than Rafa on clay, yet the current Federer is losing to every man and his dog, as well as Fish (the tennis player).

Did Fed used to lose to the likes of Berdych, Soderling and Tsonga in slams from 04-09? No.

I agree with Chazfazzer that Federer does not handle Nadal any better than he used to in 2006. Up until the start of 2008 the H2H was 8-6 to Rafa. It is now 17-8, ie Roger has managed just 2 wins in 11 encounters and even one of those was after Rafa had played almost 4 hours the previous day against Novak. During 06 and 07 Roger was actually starting to even up the H2H, after a pretty abysmal start (I think Rafa won 5 of their first 6 encounters, leading up to W 2006). Does this sound like Roger is handling Rafa better than he used to? To me it sounds like Rafa jumped off to an early lead with his clay wins, Roger clawed some ground back because he was still better on the other surfaces, but now Rafa has drawn further away and overtaken Roger on all surfaces.

If your ultimate arguement is that Roger is a more complete player than he used to be in terms of his ability to execute when he is in position and has time, in terms of his technique, his nous on a tennis court, then I think there may be some merit in that, although I still believe that to be highly debatable. However, real pro tennis is not some fantasy world where 'craft' alone is the determinant in deciding whether a player has improved or declined. In reality, the physical aspects of the sport are actually more important than a subjective (none of us are presumably tennis coaches) interpretation of whether a given player (in this case Federer) hits his BH or FH with more technical proficiency than he used to, with the ball on his racket. In those physical aspects Federer has clearly declined and a physical decline in modern tennis, imo, will affect performance level more than any minute technical improvements. To put it simply, what is the point of having a slightly more beautiful or technically better BH if you are not in position to hit it correctly? Hence overall, Federer today, as a top level performer is most definitely inferior to the Federer of 2006.

ghost

emancipator

by socal1976 Sun 25 Sep 2011, 4:31 am

Fed was better in 2006. But not by that much, most of what he lost is in a half step of speed. But I also agree with Nitb, the competition today is also much stronger. Roger lost a little and his opponents got better than they were in 04,05, and 06. People often like to think it is either one or the other, i think it is a bit of both. Anyone one can't see how Nadal and Djoko are lightyears better than Nalbandian, Davy, Ljubi, Hewitt, Safin, and Roddick is really willfully blind.

by break_in_the_fifth Sun 25 Sep 2011, 9:21 am

Disagree with the article, I don't think Federer is anywhere near as good now as he was back then otherwise he'd still be no1. He's inconsistent throughout the year. He has random, unexplainable unforced errors. So what if he's learned to play Nadal better now, that just amounts to what you said about Roddick knowing what to do against Federer but not having the skills to do it. Playing better against one or two players is not the same as an overall improvement. He can't even deal with the big hitters anymore.

Socal, aside from Nadal and Djokovic I don't see any real difference in the level of the field. Even Roddick caused more trouble in slams for Federer than say Murray. On another note I think Roddick is underrated. Sure he's somewhat one dimensional but under the faster conditions with the serve he had plus a better forehand back then and he makes for a tougher opponent than given credit for. Federer was just a bad match up for him.

by Jarvik Sun 25 Sep 2011, 9:39 am

If Federer was not better in 2006 than he is now then his records in the game, given his current results, were because of a weak era.

He was. And they're not.

by Tenez Sun 25 Sep 2011, 10:00 am

emancipator wrote:Tenez PLEASE READ THIS VERY CAREFULLY. Your views on everything are so entrenched that it's virtually impossible to engage you in any kind of constructive discussion, hence I'm going to write this one reply and one only, just to vindicate my point of view. I'll allow the more discerning of the posters to determine their own minds thereafter.

My views are strong cause I approach ideas with an open mind and I base them first, not on what I think, but ON WHAT I SEE! That is the big difference with many posters here. You base your views essentially on what you think makes sense, such as fitness 27 > fitness 30...and though this might be roughly true it can lead to wrong conclusion regading having or not a better tennis.

It is a truism that a 30yr old, by the law of averages, is not going to be as fast, as fit, or as athletically gifted as a 25yr old. There are some exceptions to this general rule and all of the examples that you stated are merely that. The history of tennis bears this out. There have been very few slam winners or world number ones after the age of 30. The VAST majority of players peak around their early to mid twenties.

You see!! typical flaw in this kind of reasoning! You assume by this that the player is facing the same opposition in his 12 year career and that they stop winning slams because they get older and not because the opposition is getting better for many reasons. A player declines for both reasons but this decline is essentially down to the player not being able to recover from the previous day match. This is why it’s getting very tough for Federer to win TMS now. He has lost a few finals despite playing well in the semi. But gives them a day in between and they will be fine.

With regards to Fed 'dismissing his contemporaries with more ease than he used to', then you need to provide some objective evidence of this. From my own subjective memory, I recall Federer beating Davy, Hewitt, and Soderling for more than 10 consecutive matches each, spanning over 2003-2009 (I'm sure someone can pull out the exact stats) before finally losing to all three of them in 2010. Does that sound like a guy who's dealing better now with players that he used to own? In any case, even if it is true that he is dismissing his contemporaries with more ease than previously, surely that is just an indication of their further decline relative to his? Furthermore, it used to be a huge shock to see Roger lose to anyone other than Rafa on clay, yet the current Federer is losing to every man and his dog, as well as Fish (the tennis player).

Did Fed used to lose to the likes of Berdych, Soderling and Tsonga in slams from 04-09? No.

Aren’t those guys allowed to improve either? What was the ranking of Tsonga,, Berdych and Soderling in 2006?
And look at Soderling. Typical example of you making a point without observing th circumstances. Fed lost only one to Soderling under very special conditions. Mud! Giving Soderling a clear advantage. Yet Federer lost despite playing pretty well if you remember that match and even had points for 2 sets to love. And what happened since that match? Fed hasn’t lost a set to Sod since.
Berdych and Hewitt? He lost against them because he was injured and you know it. He was leading Hewitt a set to love when he got his groin injury. He did lose to Berdych in 2004 so it can certainly happen.
Davy – Isn’t he allowed to get better and keep up with the top? He has shown recently that he can beat peak Nadal more convincingly than not peak Nadal (2005-07)! If that is not a sign of progress? And even in 2006 /7 he gave Fed lots of trouble. Remember that AO 06? Extremely close. Even the FO07 was very close Fed admitting that he should have lost in 3 instead of winning in 3. Only Davy’s mental lapses let Fed escape there.

I agree with Chazfazzer that Federer does not handle Nadal any better than he used to in 2006. Up until the start of 2008 the H2H was 8-6 to Rafa. It is now 17-8, ie Roger has managed just 2 wins in 11 encounters and even one of those was after Rafa had played almost 4 hours the previous day against Novak. During 06 and 07 Roger was actually starting to even up the H2H, after a pretty abysmal start (I think Rafa won 5 of their first 6 encounters, leading up to W 2006). Does this sound like Roger is handling Rafa better than he used to? To me it sounds like Rafa jumped off to an early lead with his clay wins, Roger clawed some ground back because he was still better on the other surfaces, but now Rafa has drawn further away and overtaken Roger on all surfaces.

Nadal was a terrible player previous 2008. That Federer lost to him prior to 2008 just shows how incomplete Federer was. But in fact Federer was starting to handle Nadal better in 2007, winning 5 of their last 7encounters. Then a mixture of Nadal getting really stronger and Fed mono, reversed the trend once again. Now the physical challenge that Nadal represents is simply too much for Fed and anybody else on all surfaces bar Djoko. It’s not only Federer that feels overwhelmed by Nadal nowadays, it’s the rest of the field. Including an improved Murray who can cut through the draw with more ease than ever but get stopped by Nadal when before he had a good chance of kicking his @ss!

If your ultimate arguement is that Roger is a more complete player than he used to be in terms of his ability to execute when he is in position and has time, in terms of his technique, his nous on a tennis court, then I think there may be some merit in that, although I still believe that to be highly debatable. However, real pro tennis is not some fantasy world where 'craft' alone is the determinant in deciding whether a player has improved or declined. In reality, the physical aspects of the sport are actually more important than a subjective (none of us are presumably tennis coaches) interpretation of whether a given player (in this case Federer) hits his BH or FH with more technical proficiency than he used to, with the ball on his racket. In those physical aspects Federer has clearly declined and a physical decline in modern tennis, imo, will affect performance level more than any minute technical improvements. To put it simply, what is the point of having a slightly more beautiful or technically better BH if you are not in position to hit it correctly? Hence overall, Federer today, as a top level performer is most definitely inferior to the Federer of 2006.

emancipator

As I said, you and many are ignoring the advances of the rest of the field. Advances which can be due to better players but also technological and physical advances, and more importantly technique which makes the best use of the currently diet and technology available then (Nadal and Djoko). Fed learnt tennis with a small racquet and natural strings. The fact he has been able to adapt to play the new generation who essentially learnt from scratch the modern game with modern technology is a testament of his genius. He had to adapt to that, physically and technically. You are overlooking this very simple fact.

by socal1976 Sun 25 Sep 2011, 10:36 am

Federer does have a better backhand today than he did a few years ago, in some areas particularly his ability to come over the backhand return something he almost never did in the past I think Roger is better. But overral, I would tend to agree with emancipator. It is a rarity for a tennis great to be as good at age 30 as he was at 25. That half step of speed and his loss of the ability to recover from a draining match is a big loss in the modern game.

But tenez, does make a few good points. For one thing Nadal and the rest of the competition are stronger today than they were in the early to mid 2000s. Nadal was not getting to the finals of almost every hardcourt tournament he entered, he had a weaker serve and no volleying ability. Djokovic was not the same player, and neither was Murray, Berdy, or Tsonga.

I frankly think that a combination of both stronger competition (for whatever reason technology, fitness, technical improvements) and subtle declines in fed's game has resulted in the poorer results. The margins at the top are very slim, all it takes is for your opponents to get a little better and for you to get a tiny bit worse and the dominance Fed enjoyed dissappears. The same thing can and will happen to Djoko as well. His opposition will eventually improve and he will lose a half step and it will be over in terms of dominance.

by bogbrush Sun 25 Sep 2011, 10:42 am

He's half the player.

Ignore the top table competition, the giveaway is how he struggles against exactly the type of player he used to toy with. I always remember 2008 when he had GF including groundbreaking losses to Roddick and Blake, which were unthinkable, yet some try to pretend this was him at his peak (mainly Nadal boosters). That showed us what would happen to Federer when his footspeed went, and here we are.

His movement now is awful. Big hitters just blow him off court.

Sure, he can play at the greatest heights now for short bursts but if he met himself in 2006 now I doubt he'd take more than 3 games a set.

by socal1976 Sun 25 Sep 2011, 10:42 am

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Disagree with the article, I don't think Federer is anywhere near as good now as he was back then otherwise he'd still be no1. He's inconsistent throughout the year. He has random, unexplainable unforced errors. So what if he's learned to play Nadal better now, that just amounts to what you said about Roddick knowing what to do against Federer but not having the skills to do it. Playing better against one or two players is not the same as an overall improvement. He can't even deal with the big hitters anymore.

Socal, aside from Nadal and Djokovic I don't see any real difference in the level of the field. Even Roddick caused more trouble in slams for Federer than say Murray. On another note I think Roddick is underrated. Sure he's somewhat one dimensional but under the faster conditions with the serve he had plus a better forehand back then and he makes for a tougher opponent than given credit for. Federer was just a bad match up for him.

Yes break in the fifth Nadal and Djoko have made the most substantial improvement of fed's rivals. But who was there to challenge Roger in 2005. Roddick, he was no where near the player of either of these two guys. Nalbandian? He never committed himself to fitness and neither did Safin. Hewitt, never had the weight of shot or firepower to challenge Roger or hurt him once Roger became more consistent and fitter. Having two great rivals vs. having no great rivals is the difference between winning 3 slams a year and not winning any. It is the very cream of the tour that decides who wins and loses championships and who determine the strength and weakness of any era. That is because of the nature of tournament tennis, you never have to play the entire top 20 en masse to win a grandslam. But in a top heavy era like the current one you are virtually guaranteed of having to play a great player in the semi and the final. That is why we don't see any one slam wonders anymore in this era.

by bogbrush Sun 25 Sep 2011, 10:45 am

Yes, we really need another weak era thread, just like we need another debate about how wonderful Djokovic is.

Thank you socal.

by gallery play Sun 25 Sep 2011, 10:56 am

Dont’ know if it has been mentioned but to me a crucial point is: the mindset of other players while facing Federer. Everyone knows that Federer no longer fancies a physical battle, so the players focus on hanging on in, even when Fed’s in front by a mile. Fed’s more in a hurry (for obvious reasons) than he was in 2006. Because of this he’s more flashy now but is in fact also much more vulnerable.

I know what you mean Tenez, how otherwise could i still be surprised of the level of play he’s able to produce on some occasions (USO semi, RG semi) after having seen at least 500 matches of his?
But…a peak Federer 2011 against a peak Federer 2006? chin

I somehow think the 2006 version would drive the current one nuts..

by Tenez Sun 25 Sep 2011, 12:15 pm

gallery play wrote:Dont’ know if it has been mentioned but to me a crucial point is: the mindset of other players while facing Federer. Everyone knows that Federer no longer fancies a physical battle, so the players focus on hanging on in, even when Fed’s in front by a mile. Fed’s more in a hurry (for obvious reasons) than he was in 2006. Because of this he’s more flashy now but is in fact also much more vulnerable.

That's true but is it due to him tiring quicker or is it down to the other players being much fitter than in 2006? He proved in 2011 that he can last a 5 setter versus Djoko and almost outlast him physically as he almost did in that USO semi (well way of speaking as Djoko did run much more and Federer could not have done so). He has to rally much more than he ever had to then. That is essentially his main problem nowadays and why players stick around...cause physically they can back then they coudl not. His BH and FH come back much more than they used to.

I know what you mean Tenez, how otherwise could i still be surprised of the level of play he’s able to produce on some occasions (USO semi, RG semi) after having seen at least 500 matches of his?

Cause now you don't see one great BH winning a point...you have to see 4 of them to win the very same point. That's what is pretty amazing. A great FH which used to give the point can come back as a winner from Djoko so he has to built his points and keep pushing untill it's over. That's also a huge mental pain for him which he has overcome in the important match.

But…a peak Federer 2011 against a peak Federer 2006? I somehow think the 2006 version would drive the current one nuts..

I honestly don't....unless they were to face each other on final after a tough semi.

by Tenez Sun 25 Sep 2011, 12:24 pm

We tend to idealise the past, like we idealise Agassi's returns, Pete's serve. McEnroe touch, Safin's BH and so on. They were the first with that superior skill or shot but the fact is the game moves on and those skills are shared by more and more players and tend to become the norm. Pete would have his serve returned pretty easily nowadays, Agassi's returns would not be the best, Safin's BH? well how most top players have as good one now. McEnroe? great, but have people see what Stepanek can do? Put Stepanek in McEnroe's time and he'll have a laugh.

by Tenez Sun 25 Sep 2011, 1:05 pm

To make up one's mind, best is simply to watch past and present clips. It's subtle but it's there.

But let's use the measuring stick that can be Djokovic. The number 3 players for ever than finally became that good that he did not lose a match for 6 months and is the undisputed number 1 in ranking points.

Now back in 2007. Djoko is certainly not as solid as now, is he? Yet, Federer loses to him in Canada and in the USO 07 over 3 sets is in teh lead in every set and could have beaten Federer had he overwhelmed by his first final. What happened this year versus a much athletic and solid improved Djokovic? It's Federer leading 2 sets to love and having 2 MP!

Do you really think Federer 2007 would have beaten Djoko's USO 2011?

by Chazfazzer Sun 25 Sep 2011, 1:08 pm

On the other hand, Federer destroyed Djokovic in the Australian Open in 2007.

by Jeremy_Kyle Sun 25 Sep 2011, 1:14 pm

Tenez wrote:We tend to idealise the past, like we idealise Agassi's returns, Pete's serve. McEnroe touch, Safin's BH and so on. They were the first with that superior skill or shot but the fact is the game moves on and those skills are shared by more and more players and tend to become the norm. Pete would have his serve returned pretty easily nowadays, Agassi's returns would not be the best, Safin's BH? well how most top players have as good one now. McEnroe? great, but have people see what Stepanek can do? Put Stepanek in McEnroe's time and he'll have a laugh.

Tenez: before making assumptions about what we tend to idealize (always good to talk in first person) why don't you bother to check what the greats of the past had to say, regarding physical decline.

Here for example you find an interesting reading: Ivan Lendl explains what changed in his game during his latter years.

Not surely the technical aspects of his game, that usually instead progress steadily, and according to Peter Flaming, improve even after retirement.....

Have a nice reading!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/paul_kimmage/article6349407.ece?token=null&offset=144&page=13

by Tenez Sun 25 Sep 2011, 2:19 pm

Chazfazzer wrote:On the other hand, Federer destroyed Djokovic in the Australian Open in 2007.

That was 9 months before...9 months is a lot for a 20yo.

But yet Fed destroyed him even more convincingly in Masters 2010, a fully mature Djoko!

by Tenez Sun 25 Sep 2011, 2:40 pm

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:
Tenez wrote:We tend to idealise the past, like we idealise Agassi's returns, Pete's serve. McEnroe touch, Safin's BH and so on. They were the first with that superior skill or shot but the fact is the game moves on and those skills are shared by more and more players and tend to become the norm. Pete would have his serve returned pretty easily nowadays, Agassi's returns would not be the best, Safin's BH? well how most top players have as good one now. McEnroe? great, but have people see what Stepanek can do? Put Stepanek in McEnroe's time and he'll have a laugh.

Tenez: before making assumptions about what we tend to idealize (always good to talk in first person) why don't you bother to check what the greats of the past had to say, regarding physical decline.

Here for example you find an interesting reading: Ivan Lendl explains what changed in his game during his latter years.

Not surely the technical aspects of his game, that usually instead progress steadily, and according to Peter Flaming, improve even after retirement.....

Have a nice reading!

He is not saying something very different, in fact even confirming that technically you still improve after retirement. He even goes as far as saying that stamina improves. the turning and and reflexes are affected especially if not enough time between 2 matches. The stiffness certainly takes longer to go away but Lendl retired at 34. At 32, 33 sure I won't be holding the same speech but Federer only just made 30 and I expect him to physically feel it more and more from now but what I have seen of him recently when on form, is the best I have seen with some of his 2010 matches. And I waiting to see a past display that can challenge the AO10, Masters 2010, FO 11 and teh first 2 sets of USO11, especially considering who he is playing.

And yes, JK, I use "we" because we all have this tendency to idealise the past. It's simply the because we are younger and something new is done and therefore impresses our mind in a way it will be tough for the new comers to do.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/paul_kimmage/article6349407.ece?token=null&offset=144&page=13

by Josiah Maiestas Sun 25 Sep 2011, 2:54 pm

But yet Fed destroyed him even more convincingly in Masters 2010, a fully mature Djoko!

Come on, Djokovic played like a diarrhea victim in that match, hell even Ferrer could have took him apart that day!

by Tenez Sun 25 Sep 2011, 2:55 pm

bogbrush wrote:He's half the player.

Ignore the top table competition, the giveaway is how he struggles against exactly the type of player he used to toy with.

Examples??? See my post above. I don't count the pre USO TMS cause clearly he doesn't want to kill himself there as he is saving his energy for the slams. Look at what he did of Tsonga in teh USO. IN that Wimbledon I am pretty sure, lke the previous year something was wrong with his fitness. He is not even attempting to retrieve Tsonga's serve in the last 3 sets.

His movement now is awful. Big hitters just blow him off court.

Really? If it was, he simply woudl be out in 3 versus Djoko and woudl struggle much more than that...like he did in the last 2 wimbledon.

Sure, he can play at the greatest heights now for short bursts but if he met himself in 2006 now I doubt he'd take more than 3 games a set.

He would run Fed 06 BH to BH and then he woudl be guaranteed to get a shank BH after 3 rallies.

by Tenez Sun 25 Sep 2011, 2:57 pm

Josiah Maiestas wrote:
But yet Fed destroyed him even more convincingly in Masters 2010, a fully mature Djoko!
Come on, Djokovic played like a diarrhea victim in that match, hell even Ferrer could have took him apart that day!

No that's not an honest description of the match. Fed had one of this day and simply didn't give DJoko a chance. Not that it was a one off, I think Fed 2010 had beaten Djoko 4 times out of 5 I believe and teh one time he got beaten he had 2 MPs.

by Josiah Maiestas Sun 25 Sep 2011, 3:07 pm

The result in WTF was always expected keeping in mind that Novak was still mourning losing the USO to an inferior player.

by Chazfazzer Sun 25 Sep 2011, 3:14 pm

He would run Fed 06 BH to BH and then he woudl be guaranteed to get a shank BH after 3 rallies.

Yes, because nobody tried attacking Federer's backhand in those days...

Seriously, I've been watching Federer throughout his career, and his backhand is no better now than it was back then. Watch this clip of Federer vs Nadal in the tour finals in 06; he deals with Nadal's forehand to his backhand pretty well in this match:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKT_dCUERIc

The examples you have given still show that Federer is an incredible player, and I'm not disputing that. I just think the 06 version was more consistent, with more margin for error on his shots and more court speed.

by Tenez Sun 25 Sep 2011, 3:54 pm

I am not a fan of Djoko and Nadal but what those guys are doing now physically is clearly out of this world. In the last 4 years they have become stronger, fitter and able to to turn defense into attack like it was not possible then.

Here is another display of vintage Federer in the only slam he won without droping a set. Was he that much faster and deadly? Here he is about to lose his first set v Gonzo....but saves 2 set points. This is an hilight...so the best shots only...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDDHadB9SA4

by noleisthebest Sun 25 Sep 2011, 4:55 pm

One thing that I must admit was definitely better in 2006 was Federer's serve. It was simply deadly. He was placing aces almost at will when in trouble, got so many free points on it. Not the case any more.
Now, I'm sure that age does not affect your serve, if anything does it's the confidence. For an ultra attacking player, a serve lilke Federer used to have is essential.
Again, a possible product of Nadal creeping into his head.

by **laverfan** Sun 25 Sep 2011, 5:08 pm

socal1976 wrote:Fed was better in 2006. But not by that much, most of what he lost is in a half step of speed. But I also agree with Nitb, the competition today is also much stronger. Roger lost a little and his opponents got better than they were in 04,05, and 06. People often like to think it is either one or the other, i think it is a bit of both. Anyone one can't see how Nadal and Djoko are lightyears better than Nalbandian, Davy, Ljubi, Hewitt, Safin, and Roddick is really willfully blind.

This business of competition being stronger is based on what one has seen in their tennis watching years. It is a very narrow and self-serving piece of information.

For example, Looby just won the second set against Tsonga in the Metz final.

And this from 2009....

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/305466-near-misses-david-nalbandian-vs-rafael-nadal-indian-wells-2009
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW858OWOoNc

And this from 2011... what aggressive shot making rewards

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdBpLaudTfo

by Sponsored content

Did this thread make you change your view one way or another on Federer's 2011