Was Federer better in 2006? (Poll added)

First topic message reminder :

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.

Well, it's Djoko serving so he has the upper hand, yet it's federer who goes first for the deep and pacy FH. But that's not the point. The point is that Djoko neutralises teh first agression of Federer and is happy to keep rallying...until Fed once again attacks with a DTL FH...but after a long rally, misses it and gets the net.

That is a very clear "strategic" (read this as physical) point from Djoko. He played a similar one in the first point of the TB.

But the reason I pointed to that rally is just to show how tougher it to pull a winner for anybody as the rally goes on.

Djoko nearly pushed Fed out of position a few shots earlier with a cross-court forehand right on the line. He was the first to open up the angles.

The first to attack is Federer with his FH in the corner. The shot that goes fast and deep. It's the succession of those shots that brings almost an UE on Djoko as I certainly don't think he aimed for that line. The fact is that he doesn't choose to make the most of that shot despite Federer being in trouble.

Had Federer pulled a shot like that he would have been rushing in trying to Djoko being unbalanced. Not Djoko...he prefers to invest in the futire points.

I agree in some aspects Tenez, I think his serve is better now than it ever has beeb which I think keeps him in a lot of matches these days. However I see and hear a lot of people claiming it is his footwork which is what is not as good anymore and maybe it has dropped off a little, but the biggest decline in my mind is his return. The amount of times I have sat there in shock by some of the missed returns he makes. He goes through matches sometimes unable to break for hours, the match againt Del Potro at the French Open 09 and this years Wimbledon spring to mind. Now of course JMDP and Tsonga served exceptionally but I still believe Federer of 4/5 years ago would have found a way to break. His forehand for me is not as explosive, the 04 US Open final it was unreal now I know you will say Rafa and Djoko are better retrievers and I agree but I see him decide to casually push it in at times that he did not do as often as he ued to. His return though for me is the biggest change.

I think his serve has dropped off a little in the last two years - it is still brilliant, but can fail unexpectedly at times, sometimes when he most needs it - don't know if this might be because his back is older and gets a little sorer?

I agree with you about return Cas, and his break point conversion isn't good. Sometimes he looks as if he is saving himself, and then the match runs away with him - I don't whether that is because he tires more easily in matches towards the business end of slams now?

But for me, it is his footwork and speed - ok, he is still one of the very fastest at court coverage out there, but his lightening change of direction and the way he used to be able to run backwards to balls has slipped a little. I agree that tennis players may all improve their shotmaking with age, but if the footwork is not as explosive as it was then it is harder to be in balance to hit a return as effectively. I know that sprinters often retain their speed, but as I say I think Fed is as fast as he ever was running from one side of the court to the other, it is the split second anticipation and change of direction that for me have slowed - wasn't it John McEnroe (himself a fantastic exponent of lightening change of direction) who said that tennis players lose a yard after 25? With more sophisticated training techniques now (and without McEnroe's turbulent private life at that age) that is probably rather a young age to expect a player to slow.

I think a steady increase of young players taking up the game as well as a constant evolution of nutrition and racquet technology contributes essentially in accelerating the decline of top players (or not). This is something which is largely overlooked by fans.

McEnroe is the perfect example of that. He was surpreme in 1984 and then won nothing after that. Why? simply because a new generation of players arrived who, unlike him, had learnt to play the game with graphite racquet and knew best how to exploit the advantages of the new technology. They simply whacked the ball harder and McEnore's crafty game simply broke down under the pacier balls from Becker, Edberg and then Pete. Those guys learnt to play tennis with bigger racquets and that made the difference. It doesn;t mean they were more talented but they knew how to handle and create pace better. And very importantly, the pace made McEnroe look a yard slower!

What we are seeing for Federer is no different. Fed learnt the game in faster conditions, with natural gut whereas the new generation learnt it in slowing conditions with light racquets and synthetic strings and even more importantly the nutrition advances. Nadal and Djokovic learnt how to make the most of all those changing factors. They even learnt that they could push the 20s rule to accomodate their physical game.

Yet if you take Nadal and Djoko out, Federer more than likely woudl have won 3 slams again in 2011 dismissing with as much ease as in the past the rest of the bunch. Now we have the Wimbledon hiccups that are a bit harder to explain but I think it's a combination of injuries and Tsonga serving well on this particular day. He pulled out of Halle citing a groin injury, it may have healed by Wimbledon but may have re-opened v Tsonga. His returning was really poor in these last 3 sets making Tsonga's serve much better that it really was.

This is where being 30 certainly doesn't help. You body is not as extensible and risk of injury increases...but it should not affect his tennis if fully fit.

I know a few Fed fans don;t want to consider Federer being as good as 2006 cause the idea of peak Fed being beaten by the likes of Djoko and Nadal is tough to swallow. And likewise, some of those Djoko and Nadal fans are just too happy to dismiss the 2006 opposition but they are even more wrong.

Tennis evolves and that's just the way it is. Federer is a genius and the best I have seen by a long stretch. I have no doubt that with his talent, had he been the same age of Nadal and Djoko, he would have learnt how to play and use the current technology better than Djoko and Nadal cause his talent is largely superior to those 2.

...like it or not.

That's a really interesting post Tenez - enjoyed every word of it

Wish I could give it 5 stars I think it is a very even handed look at the strengths of various players and how, as you say, tennis just does evolve and change every few years.

Tenez wrote:I think a steady increase of young players taking up as well as a constant evolution of nutrition and racquet technology contributes essentially in accelerating the decline of top players (or not). This is something which is largely overlooked by fans.

McEnroe is the perfect example of that. He was surpreme in 1984 and then won nothing after that. Why? simply because a new generation of players arrived who, unlike him, had learnt to play the game with graphite racquet and knew best how to exploit the advantages of the new technology. They simply whacked the ball harder and McEnore's crafty game simply broke down under the pacier balls from Becker, Edberg and then Pete. Those guys learnt to play tennis with bigger racquets and that made the difference. It doesn;t mean they were more talented but they knew how to handle and create pace better. And very importantly, the pace made McEnroe look a yard slower!

What we are seeing for Federer is no different. Fed learnt the game in faster conditions, with natural gut whereas the new generation learnt it in slowing conditions with light racquets and synthetic strings and even more importantly the nutrition advances. Nadal and Djokovic learnt how to make the most of all those changing factors. They even learnt that they can push the 20s rule to accomodate their physical game.

Yet if you take Nadal and Djoko out, Federer more than likely woudl have won 3 slams again in 2011 dismissing with as much ease as in the past the rest of the bunch. Now we have the Wimbledon hiccups that are a bit harder to explain but I think it's a combination of injuries and Tsonga serving well on this particular day. He pulled out Halle citing a groin injury, it may have healed by Wimbledon but may have re-opened v Tsonga. His returning was really poor in this last 3 sets making Tsonga's serve much better that it really was.

This is where being 30 certainly doesn't help...but it should not affect his tennis if fully fit.

I know a few Fed fans don;t want to consider Federer being as good as 2006 cause the idea of peak Fed being beaten by the likes of Djoko and Nadal is tough to swallow. And likewise, some of those Djoko and Nadal fans are just happy to dismiss the 2006 opposition but they are even more wrong.

Tennis evolves and that's just the way it is. Federer is a genius and the best I have seen by a long stretch. I have no doubt that with his talent, had he been the same age of Nadal and Djoko, he would have learnt how toplay and use the current technology better than Djoko and Nadal cause his talent is largely superior to those 2.

...like it or not.

Love the passion!
HOWEVER!
You can't just dismiss Novak and Nadal like that. I'll leave Nadal fans to state their case, but as far as Nole is concerned there is not a lot Fed can do which Nole can't, and we are talking tennis skill here.
You can argue that Nadal is stronger and fitter than Federer, but what about Federer being stronger than Nole, just look at the free power he gets from those shoulders, similar to Tsonga, ad the twist of his wrist and , he's off and away.
I agree his hand to eye coordination is second to none, which is why he is so enjoyable to watch, but Nole is pretty close and having a different upper body (shoulders,pecks/back) hits the forehand differently.
My ideal game scenario and shot is probably inside out forehand taken inside the court, and that has been Federer's trademark shot. Nole's is backhand down the line, but his IO forehand is also pretty, pretty good to watch.
Because of his DB, Nole is able to boss and base his game from the base-line.
Nole's game is still evolving, moving forward and getting looser and I'm enjoying it immensely. He is playing in the zone, HIS game, whereas Federer is trying to play baseline game which is not his intuitive game and is asmost impossible to play with a single bakchand. So he is in a very difficult situation. I know Nole started off with a single bakchand and as he was a "skinny kid" didn't have enough power on it so switched to DBH. Personally I really like Federer SBH it is a thing of beauty, and SBHs are generally more creative shots but of today's players who still play it I only like Fed's and Youzhny's . Stan's one is a bit butchery and rough, Gasquet's too ornate and elaborate.
I would also NEVER put Novak and Nadal in the same sentence when it comes to strength Nadal is a lot closer to Federer in that respect. Fitness, yes, not the strength.
Like it or not

Thanks TP!

NITB, Djoko's talent is honestly not comparable. Imagine for a second that Djoko was born in Federer's time. That's when fast grass, fast HC and carpet was the norm. The best players then was Pete and the single HBH gave more options at the time if you were really talented.

Do you think Djoko would be as solid as he is now with a single HBH? His main advantage he has over Federer is actually on the BH side because a DHBH gives him more solid shots and allows him to drag Federer into longer rallies. Despiet having a more solid DHBH, Djoko was not good enough until recently to beat Federer regularly. It's only that added fitness, essentially stamina and pace around the court that has allowed Djoko to really neutralise Federer on the BH.

You should not underestimate the physical part of DJoko's game. He was number 3 for ever until his stamina and footwork suddenly took off to new levels as shown by this USO final.

I don;t think I am as passionate about Federer as you are of Djoko. I am not Swiss.

"I don;t think I am as passionate about Federer as you are of Djoko. I am not Swiss."
Trust me , you are more passionate about Fed than the Swiss. I was living in Switzerland when he was in his peak, just won his 3rd Wimbledon I think, most people couldn't care less, which is why I was out of there in no time.
The fact that I appear more passionate about Nole than you about Fed is probably because I'm more passionate than you in general.

You are either passionate or not about somebody, whether you are Swiss, French or Serbian, I don't think it's automatic. I am passionate about Henin almost the same as I am about Nole, and I'm not Belgian.

I've lived around the world a bit long enough not to pin down my passion exclusively down to nationality. Tennis more than any other sports allows for that big time, although you can't obviously deny that a lot of players' background comes through their game.

I am passionate about talent, not much else. That's why I watch tennis cause this is where I can identify it with more ease. Had Nadal had Fed's talent, I'd be supporting Nadal.

I understand that talent can be expressed in different ways, even in tennis, but I know too well that talent can also be over-shadowed by the physical side of the game.

I certainly know you can appreciate other players with different nationalities but it woudl be difficult to deny that your love of Djoko is not also linked to you two sharing the same nationality. Nothing wrong there though.

Tenez wrote:I am passionate about talent, not much else. That's why I watch tennis cause this is where I can identify it with more ease. Had Nadal had Fed's talent, I'd be supporting Nadal.

I understand that talent can be expressed in different ways, even in tennis, but I know too well that talent can also be over-shadowed by the physical side of the game.

I certainly know you can appreciate other players with different nationalities but it woudl be difficult to deny that your love of Djoko is not also linked to you two sharing the same nationality. Nothing wrong there though.

Of course there is nothing wrong with it, but I don't like to boxed in that way esp as I am quite indifferent towards other Serbian players.

Here a sign that Federer is taking longer to recover:

In Sydney, Roger Federer made a sluggish start before beating Lleyton Hewitt 5-7 7-6 6-2 6-3 to move Switzerland level at 1-1 against Australia in a World Group play-off.

Federer said he was feeling the effects of his five-set loss to Djokovic in the US Open semi-finals and felt uncomfortable on an "old school" grass court.

"I all of a sudden realised this was much more difficult than I expected," Federer said.

That DC match was close to a week after the USO match. Just shows how tough it is for Federer to recover nowadays.

Let's hope he's fit and kicking in Basel and since he missed Shanghai, he should be.

Has Djoko yet canceled on Basel? Would love to see the repeat of last years final.

So after Wilander, it seems Pete Sampres himself thinks he became a better player as he grew older! He says exactly what I have been saying there. (thanks to Laurie for the reference).

[quote]http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/last-match-was-best-i-ever-played-says-sampras-577514.html



Many among the cognoscenti would point to 1993-97 - when he collected nine of his majors - as his prime. But Sampras contends: "The best tennis I played was when I was older. I wasn't as consistent week in and week out but that match I played against Andre [Agassi] at the 2002 US Open - my last match ever - was the highest level I have ever played.


"Everyone was getting better when I was No 1 in the world and winning majors left and right. I was 10 times the player as I got older. When I was dominating I didn't have any bad matches and players overall weren't as good. The 2002 US Open Pete would beat the 1994 or 1995 Pete easily."


Sampras clarifies why he believes he was better later in his career. "I served-and-volleyed a lot more on my second serve in the mid-to-late Nineties, and started using it more as a weapon. It was worth a few double faults to go for big second serves. The more I came in behind the second serve, the more effective a volleyer I became."[/quote]

[quote="Tenez"]So after Wilander, it seems Pete Sampres himself thinks he became a better player as he grew older! He says exactly what I have been saying there. (thanks to Laurie for the reference).

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/last-match-was-best-i-ever-played-says-sampras-577514.html



Many among the cognoscenti would point to 1993-97 - when he collected nine of his majors - as his prime. But Sampras contends: "The best tennis I played was when I was older. I wasn't as consistent week in and week out but that match I played against Andre [Agassi] at the 2002 US Open - my last match ever - was the highest level I have ever played.


"Everyone was getting better when I was No 1 in the world and winning majors left and right. I was 10 times the player as I got older. When I was dominating I didn't have any bad matches and players overall weren't as good. The 2002 US Open Pete would beat the 1994 or 1995 Pete easily."


Sampras clarifies why he believes he was better later in his career. "I served-and-volleyed a lot more on my second serve in the mid-to-late Nineties, and started using it more as a weapon. It was worth a few double faults to go for big second serves. The more I came in behind the second serve, the more effective a volleyer I became."[/quote]

Thanks for the post Tenez and all the other posters with their different views. It was one of the most remarkable reading experiences I've had in this forum.

[quote="Tenez"]So after Wilander, it seems Pete Sampres himself thinks he became a better player as he grew older! He says exactly what I have been saying there. (thanks to Laurie for the reference).

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/last-match-was-best-i-ever-played-says-sampras-577514.html



Many among the cognoscenti would point to 1993-97 - when he collected nine of his majors - as his prime. But Sampras contends: "The best tennis I played was when I was older. I wasn't as consistent week in and week out but that match I played against Andre [Agassi] at the 2002 US Open - my last match ever - was the highest level I have ever played.


"Everyone was getting better when I was No 1 in the world and winning majors left and right. I was 10 times the player as I got older. When I was dominating I didn't have any bad matches and players overall weren't as good. The 2002 US Open Pete would beat the 1994 or 1995 Pete easily."


Sampras clarifies why he believes he was better later in his career. "I served-and-volleyed a lot more on my second serve in the mid-to-late Nineties, and started using it more as a weapon. It was worth a few double faults to go for big second serves. The more I came in behind the second serve, the more effective a volleyer I became."[/quote]

Tennis Federer played in order to beat tense but nonetheless red-hot Novak at RG was one of the best I've seen him play. The fact that the match was played on clay (taking time away from Federer and his natural game and giving more to Nole and HIS natural game)which should suit Novak more adds extra weight to the win.
People seriously underestimate the role of confidence in consistency and results that consistency brings: in 2005,6 Federer won his matches in the locker room, life was a lot easier for him than now. That does not diminish his achievements, let me be clear about it, as well. Just the fact. Dominating was easier then than now, it was easier to get to slam finals because there was no slam-winning candidates across the net then. Now, it's harder to get to the finals, you have highly talented, but inconsistent powerful banana-skin players (Tsonga, Delpo, even Berdych), so it's normal that Federer is winning less. Also the game has changed and Federer has had to develop his rallying game which is no easy feat with his SBH, and I think Annacone had helped him there a lot.
As far as that aspect of his game is concerned, AND despite the well-advertised fact that Federer is 30 , which does not hold water (30 is physical prime for a lot of men, esp those that didn't pump their bodies in the gym silly) his game is still work in progress, but I get the feeling as much as the game and tactics, Federer needs that old confidence more than ever if he wants the results. Catch 22, but everyone's been there. The challenge is to get out of it. Interesting times ahead.

it was a fantastic match - but then matches between Fed and Novak generally don't disappoint - it's a good match up for all of us at any rate!

Thanks for the feedback Raiders, TP and NITB. I thought too it was a very interesting topic when approached with an open mind.

And this is why observing a match and not the scoreboard is more important. I remember when I saw the Federer v Sod FO 10 match I thought Federer played extremely well until the muddy conds took the pace out of his shots and allowed Sod to play extremely well. Saying that Fed woudl have won that match in 2006 is purely wrong. In 2006, Sod was not as good to start with and on that occasion everything clicked for Sod, including saving the set points for a 2 sets down.

Same regarding the USO 09 final. Fed played amazingly well and was close to win as comfortably as in the AO 09....despite Delpo being a better player 9 months later. However slight tiredness from the previous day match started to creep in with Delpo's shot starting to stretch Federer and the balance turned. It summarises the situation here...He played better than in 2006 but his body did not recover as well as in the past. Delpo's easy 3 setter and 20% more rest time than Federer played a cucial part in his victory for the first time over Federer.

OMG is Pete calling 1994-1995 a weak era!?

you have highly talented, but inconsistent powerful banana-skin players (Tsonga, Delpo, even Berdych)

Berdych talented? Really? His only GS final made was in a period where his half of the draw were all playing hopelessly.. i will give you the other 2 although even they have glaring weaknesses which doesn't back up the notion of a golden era.

Tenez wrote:Thanks for the feedback Raiders, TP and NITB. I thought too it was a very interesting topic when approached with an open mind.

And this is why observing a match and not the scoreboard is more important. I remember when I saw the Federer v Sod FO 10 match I thought Federer played extremely well until the muddy conds took the pace out of his shots and allowed Sod to play extremely well. Saying that Fed woudl have won that match in 2006 is purely wrong. In 2006, Sod was not as good to start with and on that occasion everything clicked for Sod, including saving the set points for a 2 sets down.

Same regarding the USO 09 final. Fed played amazingly well and was close to win as comfortably as in the AO 09....despite Delpo being a better player 9 months later. However slight tiredness from the previous day match started to creep in with Delpo's shot starting to stretch Federer and the balance turned. It summarises the situation here...He played better than in 2006 but his body did not recover as well as in the past. Delpo's easy 3 setter and 20% more rest time than Federer played a cucial part in his victory for the first time over Federer.

Thanks for the thread Tenez - really enjoyed reading it

I agree Tenez, his footwork isn't as good any more. Perhaps related to the fatigue you've slipped in there as a postscript.

His footwork is still pretty good and its loss doesn;t compensate for what Federer gained overall over the years.

The USO09 final is a good summary. His game there was better than most matches I have seen of him in the past....but sure, playing the day before is certainly now a disadvantage especially against players (like Djokovic) who are really making it harder for him than they did in 2006. Give federer a day rest in between matches and he is in top form.

What a player gains in experience, is sometimes lost in the aging process. Federer has managed to keep a very good balance between the two and deserves the credit for his hard work and dedication to the sport of Tennis.

laverfan wrote:What a player gains in experience, is sometimes lost in the aging process. Federer has managed to keep a very good balance between the two and deserves the credit for his hard work and dedication to the sport of Tennis.

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.

I too am a bit surprised by the question. Of course he was better in 2006. As a Murray fan I'd love to say that the it's the quality of his rivals that makes him look worse - but that's plainly not the truth

Fed loses these days because he doesn't apply himself as well as he did, for as long as he should. Consequently he now has to 'scrap' for more wins - something totally alien to him (i.e. in comparison to 2004/5) Reason for why he's in this position in the first place, is because he's a touch slower and a touch more mentally jaded and will have a touch more self doubt

It's actually nonsense to even think he could be as good a he was then - given that it's surely the best Tennis we've ever seen, given that it made Mac at his pomp look like a journeyman

In fairness, his pomp was more 2004/5 - but the Federer of 2006 would be No.1 now, just not winning as much

Banbro....you are wrong...as usual I am afraid.

Read the whole thread...including what Sampras says.

Banbro....you are wrong...as usual I am afraid.

In your opinion. In my opinion I think he's correct.

So do I. There's been plenty wrong in other statements in the thread IMO IMO IMO.

Chazfazzer wrote:

Banbro....you are wrong...as usual I am afraid.

In your opinion. In my opinion I think he's correct.

It's not a question of opinion...it's about being correct or not. I have not, and nor have you btw, seen Federer in 2006 play better than in London 2010 or FO 2011. And if you think you have, you certainly have not seen him play as well against peak Nadal and peak Djoko cause in 2006 they had not reached their peak, so you have little evidence to prove Fed 2006 was actually better.

Finally, if Sampras himself says that Pete 2002 would beat Pete 94 easily, I'd trust him...though I only trust what I see ...but on what I saw, he makes a good point.

And there are a lot of players who have reached their best ranking achieve their best tennis at 30. Henman reaching teh FO semi at 30, Melzer reaching his highest ranking at 29 or 30, Davydeno was ranked number 3 in 2006 yet wasn't his best tennis played in 2009 at 29? Agassi won most of his slams after 30, The list is long.

Your main argument is that the top player was not as dominant as in hey days, but the thing is that the tour moves on and catches up and more importantly the technology and weapons evolve too and 5 years gives them plenty of time to catch up in a very competitive sport. Pete was aware that people were getting better. Borg knew also that teh competition was going to be tougher, McEnroe's touch game became obsolete in a matter of months. And now Nadal's game is being exposed! It used to be the game that had enough energy and power to override any talent...but look, some new guys come on board and Nadal is history.

It moves very fast...What Fed did is amazing. He is still there at the top, very close to the top 2, on the day, and no way he woudl have been able to stay with them with his 2006 game. If anything he progressed faster in his later years than young Murray! That is also amazing in itself.

I have not, and nor have you btw, seen Federer in 2006 play better than in London 2010 or FO 2011.

Federer playing well at the WTF is hardly unusual. In 2006 he absolutely annihilated James Blake in the final, after James Blake had beaten Nadal pretty easily the match before that. Seriously, go and watch a replay of that match; it's basically an exhibition of single-handed backhand perfection. In 2007 he thrashed Roddick, Nadal and Ferrer.

Chazfazzer wrote:Federer playing well at the WTF is hardly unusual. In 2006 he absolutely annihilated James Blake in the final, after James Blake had beaten Nadal pretty easily the match before that. Seriously, go and watch a replay of that match; it's basically an exhibition of single-handed backhand perfection. In 2007 he thrashed Roddick, Nadal and Ferrer.

Your answer holds the clue to the problem there. That was in 2006. Was that the last time a SHBH other than Federer beat Nadal (besides the present to Lopez at Queens)? Nadal has been a different animal over the last 2 years.

Federer this year could beat Roddick and Blake as easily as in 2006. Certainly the way he has played in slams this year and last year. The problem for Fed nowadays is that to find the zone like he could in 2006/7 is almost impossible cause his top 2 opponents are pushing him constantly physically and that prevents him to relax and reach that cloud where he was untouchable. Easy against Blake and Roddick...both were sending him a ball he grew up with. It's simply different nowadays. One is the king of topspinnig and can go for ever, the other is a Safin on wheels, with Borg's consistency and Connors' mental strengh. The challenge is huge.

Look at Ferrero, Nalbandian, Hewitt...etc...they could not swim against the stream...they went from number 1 or so to nowhere cause their game and physique could not keep up.

I can see we're just gonna go round in circles here...all I'm gonna say is that I think Federer's game was more stylish and solid in 06/07, and watching him play back then was always a pleasure. Nowadays watching him is often an exercise in frustration as I see him dump shots in the middle of the net or inexplicably out...the great matches are still there from time to time, but interspersed with too much mediocrity. I'm sure you'll dispute every word I've just written, but there we go.

2006 and 2011
like ships at night
one gliding smoothly
the other one bright.

Chazfazzer wrote:

I have not, and nor have you btw, seen Federer in 2006 play better than in London 2010 or FO 2011.

Federer playing well at the WTF is hardly unusual. In 2006 he absolutely annihilated James Blake in the final, after James Blake had beaten Nadal pretty easily the match before that. Seriously, go and watch a replay of that match; it's basically an exhibition of single-handed backhand perfection. In 2007 he thrashed Roddick, Nadal and Ferrer.

That's the one i was thinking of too. You have to agree T, this is outstanding tennis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjW-0K6X8jc

Federer simply doesn't produce perfect matches from start2finish like this anymore. And definitely not in the latter stages of a tournament. He may be a better shotmaker now but that doesn't make up for the superior movement, reflexes, speed and stamina of 2006. The 2011 Federer could not survive against the consistency of version 2006 in my opinion.

This one is better, compared to the Blake TMC mauling (and from 2010 )....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNM7tFzFCLU

gallery play wrote:That's the one i was thinking of too. You have to agree T, this is outstanding tennis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjW-0K6X8jc

Federer simply doesn't produce perfect matches from start2finish like this anymore. And definitely not in the latter stages of a tournament. He may be a better shotmaker now but that doesn't make up for the superior movement, reflexes, speed and stamina of 2006. The 2011 Federer could not survive against the consistency of version 2006 in my opinion.

It is outstanding tennis but the one to watch on this clip is not Federer. It's Blake and the conditions. 2 shot rallies, talent Blake versus talent federer...one great shot from Blake for 2 UEs, one ball on Blake's BH and it comes back as a present on low bouncing, fast court. This is honey tennis for Federer, the kind he grew up with which he can play for hours!!!. It's a totally different tennis from the tennis played 5 years later, especially by Nadal and Djoikovic. It's very misleading. As I said earlier, Fed coudl find the zone against those guys and stay there for the duration of a match. But even in 2006 he coudl not play that well for 5 sets versus Nadal. In his Wimbledon 2007, he lost 2 sets including one convincingly and was helped in the 5th by Nadal himself runing out of steam for the last time Rafa lost a 5 setter. Don't you agree that Nadal now is much stronger than Nadal 2007?

Federer played as good a match v Davydenko in Doha this year or v Monaco in that USO where he got a standing ovation at 1am! But he simply can't find that cloud against Djoko and Nadal. Federer can't produce long matches of high tennis because it is a much more physical tennis. And he is now better than in 2006, cause now he knows he can't rally with those guys...back then, he thought he could but clearly his tennis collapsed after a set or two. Haven't we watched enough of Federer losing those long matches? Those guys are no Blake unfortunately.

Look at the ranking Dec 06
1 Federer, Roger (SUI) 8,370 0 19
2 Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 4,470 0 19
3 Davydenko, Nikolay (RUS) 2,825 0 32
4 Blake, James (USA) 2,530 0 26
5 Ljubicic, Ivan (CRO) 2,495 0 22
6 Roddick, Andy (USA) 2,415 0 21
7 Robredo, Tommy (ESP) 2,375 0 27
8 Nalbandian, David (ARG) 2,295 0 17
9 Ancic, Mario (CRO) 2,060 0 24
10 Gonzalez, Fernando (CHI

Where are those guys nowadays? nowhere to be seen.

As said, take Nadal and Djoko away and Federer woudl have 3 slams this year again and possibly 4 if he hadn't had an impediment in that Wimbledon 1/4F.

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

That should close the debate!

It was a masterclass - sublime Fed, so fluid and with such wonderful attacking tennis. He was in a hurry that night because they didn't get onto court until about midnight, I think. When he plays like that, and as he did against Novak at WTF and for two of the sets against Nadal at WTF, he is simply unplayable.

He seems to need to know he can get it done in 3 now, and to have a real sense of urgency.

Wish I had been there - it is a completely different experience watching how the ball flies with Federer playing than watching anyone else live. You just know that the television will not have done justice to the subtlety and speed of his game.

Tenez wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOLrAYaLZ4Q

That should close the debate!

What i see here is a Federer in 2006 form.. You're not going to make me believe that Monaco is better opposition than a peak Blake.
Let's be honest, how many matches have we seen Federer play like this this year? Three?
Yes i know tennis has changed the last 5 years, we've talked about it very often. But Roger's body changed too. Federer adapted his game to the marathon maniacs of today and that's why he's still standing tall (against those two). But hitting harder and fearless doesn't necessarily make him a better player.
I'm afraid we're not going to settle this T

Yes...and more importantly, his style is purer, more economical nowadays than in 2006. Less strange awkward mouvements. His tennis is more compact and purposeful. But I agree he is more erratic, especially in the lesser tournaments. He doesn't want to kill himself for those nowadays....and we can expect that from the player that won it all.

gallery play wrote: But hitting harder and fearless doesn't necessarily make him a better player.

It does to me....cause he has got better at it and that was the only way he could keep up with the top 2. He has achieved that.

But yeah, let's diagree on that one.

time please wrote:It was a masterclass - sublime Fed, so fluid and with such wonderful attacking tennis. He was in a hurry that night because they didn't get onto court until about midnight, I think. When he plays like that, and as he did against Novak at WTF and for two of the sets against Nadal at WTF, he is simply unplayable.

He seems to need to know he can get it done in 3 now, and to have a real sense of urgency.

Wish I had been there - it is a completely different experience watching how the ball flies with Federer playing than watching anyone else live. You just know that the television will not have done justice to the subtlety and speed of his game.

Federer is only unplayable when he is allowed to . And I agree, he is fabulous to watch then, in fact he is always great to watch, even those wild mishits that draw gasps are kind of amazing because you never fail to be "shocked" how they can possibly come off Federer's racquet.
I saw him live twice (both times at WTF), first against Davydenko (nobody beats Davydenko 13 times in a row!) and last year against Nadal. Last year I had a great seat, close to the court and it made THE WORLD OF DIFFERENCE (I won't be buying any other seats from now on, waste of time!)! I could actually hear all the different sounds that came off his racquet, esp on backhand, it was fascinating, and it was all happening so fast. He definitely likes his indoor tennis.
With Federer, if he gets you in his mill, you're finished, he'll grind you to dust, like he used to with all that 06 competition. I feel sorry for all those players who all knew they could no next to nothing against him.I think he's found his match in Novak the Wall. Unlike Nadal, Novak does not bludgeon Federer's bakchand exclusively, he actually tries to go for his forehand, and has the other plan as a safe option. I don't know why he makes life difficult like that for himself, must be his tennis pride, which is nice, Nole is no Machiavelian.
I must admit I would like to see another slam match between Federer and Nadal on hard courts.

What Banbro and others have been saying is that there is no way Federer is better now and it's absurd to think that at 30 he can be better. At least this thread shows that it certainly not absurd to think so and there si a very good case to say that his peaks now are better than his peaks then...he just have a bit less of them...but more precisely in my view it's simply much harder nowadays to find that relax, free style, extra - terrestrial tennis he could display v the 2006 players cause the game has evolved and now everybody can get the best of those courts and strings.

What's so obvious in that 2006 ranking is that those players were great shot makers, not endless rallyers standing 2m behind the baseline bar Nadal of course. Those were the bread and butter days for Federer.

Tenez wrote:

gallery play wrote: But hitting harder and fearless doesn't necessarily make him a better player.

It does to me....

Only if it would have been effective all the time, which unfortunatly isn't the case
He has no other option though..

BTW: did you know that the Alpe D'Huez climb this year was timed four minutes longer than the fastest Alpe d'Huez ascent ever (1997: Pantani)?
There's hope for the shotmakers in tennis

gallery play wrote:

Tenez wrote:

gallery play wrote: But hitting harder and fearless doesn't necessarily make him a better player.

It does to me....

BTW: did you know that the Alpe D'Huez climb this year was timed four minutes longer than the fastest Alpe d'Huez ascent ever (1997: Pantani)?
There's hope for the shotmakers in tennis

I heard! Well not specifically about this stage but about the TDF in general. Yes cycling is doing a huge effort to clean its sport. Very pleased with that.

4minutes!!!! that's a lot!

Tenez wrote:What's so obvious in that 2006 ranking is that those players were great shot makers, not endless rallyers standing 2m behind the baseline bar Nadal of course. Those were the bread and butter days for Federer.

There are no rallies 2m behind the baseline in this one, yet he lost.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEKqVK8Fvek&NR=1

This is on a fast(est?) HC, no rallies in this one either.

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

By showing Monaco @midnight, Federer is made to look good, but on the same HC during the day against Cilic and Djokovic, he looks very different.

He is done what he can, and will have his fair share of good and bad days.

Muddying Nadal and Djokovic is rather strange. The Murray AO 2010 match shows he can rally and play 30+ shots rallies very well and still win in three sets.

laverfan wrote:

Tenez wrote:What's so obvious in that 2006 ranking is that those players were great shot makers, not endless rallyers standing 2m behind the baseline bar Nadal of course. Those were the bread and butter days for Federer.

There are no rallies 2m behind the baseline in this one, yet he lost.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEKqVK8Fvek&NR=1

This is on a fast(est?) HC, no rallies in this one either.

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

By showing Monaco @midnight, Federer is made to look good, but on the same HC during the day against Cilic and Djokovic, he looks very different.

He is done what he can, and will have his fair share of good and bad days.

Muddying Nadal and Djokovic is rather strange. The Murray AO 2010 match shows he can rally and play 30+ shots rallies very well and still win in three sets.

Why did you choose part 2 and not part 1 of the USO semi? cause there it's Djoko doing most of the running...and yes Djoko is behind 2 meters. Against Cilic he had a bad day but disagree v Djoko.

Yes the AO10 final match could be a good example of Federer being better than 2006 except that Murray unlike Djoko and Nadal doesn't make him run much...Murray does most of the running in those long rallies.