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.

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.

Exactly, and it gets tedious when his supporters say he's a "tactical genius". Surely a "tactical genius" would know you can't do ALL the running against the hardest opposition. Nadull only gets away with it because he stings the ball more and actually has a good forehand.

He isn't.

OK Tenez, I know he can hit the ball great, and he has a drop shot, and back then the game was the one he designed himself for when still young enough, but he was better overall for just one reason: he was faster.

I think his shots are better now but his shots will be incredible when he's 70. He just won't get there.

By the way, i just realised that if he wants to play veterans tennis he will win it all when the time comes. I really can't see Rafa at 40+ playing his current game but I can see a middle aged Federer more or less doing the business.

Tenez wrote: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.

Unlike the Tsonga W 2011 match, Fed was imperious in the first two sets and did not have any chances in sets three through five. I chose part 2 to highlight when he went into 'hibernation', which never happened in 2006. The only exception that I can think of, is the Nalbandian @TMC 2005 .

Tenez wrote: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.

Federer did a fair bit of running in set 3 @ AO 2010, which was perhaps not there against Djokovic @USO 2011 in sets three and four.

bogbrush wrote:He isn't.

OK Tenez, I know he can hit the ball great, and he has a drop shot, and back then the game was the one he designed himself for when still young enough, but he was better overall for just one reason: he was faster.

That reason alone doesn't make up for his more solid and attacking shots. As I say in my last description, his game looks better now, his shts more secure and because he attacks more, he does not have to scrap around the court as much like in the past. Especially since this running around then did not bring him many wins against a much weaker Nadal.

I think his shots are better now but his shots will be incredible when he's 70. He just won't get there.

Indeed. And honestly 6 years after watching him, he still produces the wow factor.... and only because he stands up against the new fitter players like he did overcome the Hewitt and Nalbandian then...except that now they are considerably better than Hewitt and solid than Nalbandian. And for that you need to have great footwork. Something I noticed today is that he doesn;t try to reach for any ball. He saves his energy. The top players can run more than ever. Not him. It looks like he hasn't updated or upgraded his recovery drinks and it seems he doesn't want to. That's why his game has got to be more economic now.

By the way, i just realised that if he wants to play veterans tennis he will win it all when the time comes. I really can't see Rafa at 40+ playing his current game but I can see a middle aged Federer more or less doing the business.

No different than McEnroe for a long time...his genius could make up for the loss of fitness v the younger generation

laverfan wrote:

Tenez wrote: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.

Unlike the Tsonga W 2011 match, Fed was imperious in the first two sets and did not have any chances in sets three through five. I chose part 2 to highlight when he went into 'hibernation', which never happened in 2006. The only exception that I can think of, is the Nalbandian @TMC 2005 .

Tenez wrote: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.

Federer did a fair bit of running in set 3 @ AO 2010, which was perhaps not there against Djokovic @USO 2011 in sets three and four.

Nope - Federer was not imperious in the first 2 sets v Tsonga. Tsonga was nervous and all over the place. Fed just used his experience there.

The part 2 happens cause even in set 1 and 2 the length of the rallies took a lot from him like noone could move him around back then. But even in 2006 his stamina was already going down badly after a set when he was being moved around by Nadal on clay.

In fact Clay 2006 is exactly what happens nowadays everywhere to Fed when he plays Djook and Nadal. He had his lapses back then too v Nadal. What's teh difference between Djoko Federer US 11 semi and Rome 2006 or FO 06? not much! he simply lost the physical edge there as well. I remember an interview of Federer in 06 or 07 and back then he was already saying "UEs??? it doesn;t matter how many UEs I make versus Nadal, you have got to go for your shots, no other solution". And that is teh case today as well for him. But today he has less of them and more winners! Unlike Djoko he cannot (and never could) rally physically with Nadal.

Absolutely fascinating thread. Thanks to everyone, but T especially. Great analysis, observation and yet more analysis. Hats off to you Tenez. I agree with most of what you say.

Tenez wrote:But even in 2006 his stamina was already going down badly after a set when he was being moved around by Nadal on clay.

That makes no sense.

And yet he could play a five set match on Clay in Rome, 2006 (which he has never done again on Clay against Rafa).

2006 ATP Rome Nadal, Rafael 6-7(0), 7-6(5), 6-4, 2-6, 7-6(5) (Federer 25 yo)
2006 Roland Garros Nadal, Rafael 1-6, 6-1, 6-4, 7-6(4) Stats (Federer 25 yo)
2011 Roland Garros Nadal, Rafael 7-5, 7-6(3), 5-7, 6-1 Stats (Federer 30 yo)

Notice the first set. Federer had a set point at 5-2 on Rafa's serve (the missed drop shot) @FO 2011. After that miss at 5-2. He did not win a single game in set 1.

Also, he had the stamina in 2008 (during his Mono) to play a five set match with Tipsarevic @AO.

Here is his five-set record.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=4895968&postcount=201

Tenez wrote:he simply lost the physical edge there as well.

... after winning the first set @RG 2006 at 6-1?

Watch this again... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lia1v4riTsI

Of course it does make sense. Running for 5 sets is not the problem. Especially resting every other game. It's keeping the sharpness needed to pull winners against the best retriever that is the challenge. Have you heard of biathlon? the challenge there is to be able to aim for the targets after long ski runs. In short that has been Federer's challenge all his career. It started against guys like Hewitt and Nalbandian and then more recently v Nadal and Djoko. He is the best shooter in town but lots of running affects his shooting. Playing against guys like Blake is fine cause they don;t run that much....it;s a shoot out as we say. But against Nadal and Djoko, it's all about the running.....balls coming back when in 2006 they did not and that affect the shooting.

Tenez wrote:Of course it does make sense. Running for 5 sets is not the problem. Especially resting every other game. It's keeping the sharpness needed to pull winners against the best retriever that is the challenge. Have you heard of biathlon? the challenge there is to be able to aim for the targets after long ski runs. In short that has been Federer's challenge all his career. It started against guys like Hewitt and Nalbandian and then more recently v Nadal and Djoko. He is the best shooter in town but lots of running affects his shooting. Playing against guys like Blake is fine cause they don;t run that much....it;s a shoot out as we say. But against Nadal and Djoko, it's all about the running.....balls coming back when in 2006 they did not and that affect the shooting.

Yes, suddenly having to shoot moving, rather than fixed targets...not easy, indeed, plus one of them can shoot pretty well himself, too.

Tenez wrote:Of course it does make sense. Running for 5 sets is not the problem. Especially resting every other game. It's keeping the sharpness needed to pull winners against the best retriever that is the challenge.

Yet, he can do it against Murray (@AO 2010), Djokovic (@USO 2011), Nadal (@W2006, @W2007). And come back from Championship point down in W2008 to win two TB sets and lose 9-7 in the fifth set.

Tenez wrote:Have you heard of biathlon? the challenge there is to be able to aim for the targets after long ski runs. In short that has been Federer's challenge all his career. It started against guys like Hewitt and Nalbandian and then more recently v Nadal and Djoko. He is the best shooter in town but lots of running affects his shooting.

This is not biathlon. This is just Tennis. Running and retrieving, both, are parts of tennis. You are also implying an unwillingness to change tactics and strategy based on your opponent. The claim that Federer has a plan A, but no plan B, seems to be a very easy deduction from your statements, which I completely disagree with.

Here is Federer, in his own words,

"The surfaces are much slower now, so you need to find different ways of winning the point, which is fine. I like to grind it out and go through 10, 20 shot rallies sometimes to win the point and break the opponent's will down. The game has definitely changed with strings and balls over the last 10 years."

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2011/06/25/Wimbledon-Tuesday-Federer-Wimbledon-Destiny.aspx

... and so can Federer....

Tenez wrote:Playing against guys like Blake is fine cause they don;t run that much....it;s a shoot out as we say. But against Nadal and Djoko, it's all about the running.....balls coming back when in 2006 they did not and that affect the shooting.

I am not personally a fan of Bleacher Reports.

If Djokovic could change his game and beat Rafa using Rafa's own tactics, why did Federer not it see it coming since the Miami 2005 match and change? If what you imply is correct, Federer being a 'Genius at work' should have figured it out. Lydian has made similar observations in the past.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/848423-roger-federer-6-changes-he-has-to-make-to-return-to-his-previous-dominance

Tennis is like Biathlon for Federer. If you don;t want to see the parallel, fine but that the best way I coudl explain why players whose game are based on hitting with smaller margins were at a disadvantage as the game (race) extends.

It's very simple. And Novak and Murray perfectly understood what they had to do to challenge Nadal. They had (ve) to get fitter. Federer has reached the maximum of his fitness. Compare Federer's fitness with any player in the history of tennis and he is up there with the very best but there are 2 or 3 players fitter than him and he can;t do anything about that. Those 3 guys know it and will do their best to extend the race, that is the length of the rallies to blunt his sharpness.

He knows that and his tactics of shortening rallies have been clearer over the last few months. He is getting better at it but will it be enough to win another GS, no one knows.

Tenez wrote:Tennis is like Biathlon for Federer. If you don;t want to see the parallel, fine but that the best way I coudl explain why players whose game are based on hitting with smaller margins were at a disadvantage as the game (race) extends.

What are you stating is that the accuracy decreases as time of the match (or rally length) increases, yet he has been able to win many matches, for example, W 2009 against Roddick 16-14 in the fifth. I do understand that it is a different opponent across the net than Top 3.

Tenez wrote:It's very simple. And Novak and Murray perfectly understood what they had to do to challenge Nadal. They had (ve) to get fitter.

That sounds like an easy excuse for Federer. Let me give you an example. Davydenko. He is a Tennis machine without the physical attributes of the Top 4. Taking the ball early is another solution to the long rallies, IMVHO.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=N409&oId=D402

Tenez wrote:Federer has reached the maximum of his fitness. Compare Federer's fitness with any player in the history of tennis and he is up there with the very best but there are 2 or 3 players fitter than him and he can;t do anything about that. Those 3 guys know it and will do their best to extend the race, that is the length of the rallies to blunt his sharpness.

See my example of Davydenko.

Tenez wrote:He knows that and his tactics of shortening rallies have been clearer over the last few months. He is getting better at it but will it be enough to win another GS, no one knows.

As BB says, Federer's style of playing is a reason for his longevity and sharpness. If he can play like he did at FO 2011, or AO 2010, he can win more slam(s).

The problem is not so much the length of the match than the length and pace of the rallies themselves. 5 hours against Roddick might be less taxing than 2 versus Nadal. THis is why Fed's 3 setter v Murray was not so bad as Murray hasn't got the weapons to make Federer run as much.

Davydenko is a good example. Well picked up....But davydenko has the huge advantage of having a DHBH, so key against Nadal and therefore can dictate Nadal like Djoko does cause both have a bigger racquet's sweet spot on, less chance of shanking and more importantly can use both hands to generate the power from the BH without half the risk Federer woudl need. They make Nadal run because of that BH. Nadal has to cover more ground just to cover his BH, just in case. The pace of the ball coming from Federer's BH is (was) not hard enough to keep Nadal on his toes (except indoors and faster conds) and that forces Federer to cover lots more ground than he would have to had he got a DHBH.

Winning slams is not in Federer's racquet as much as it was in 2006. Djoko has yet to reach his peak probably, and more guys are coming along who have learnt their skills playing against those top guys. Dolgo, for instance, is learning how to play Nadal and Djoko. So are Harisson, Young, Dimitrov, etc...the exposure was essential for joko to learn how to vercome the top guys....along with getting fitter of course.

It's very simple LF if you observe with an openmind.

Tenez wrote:But davydenko has the huge advantage of having a DHBH

But Murray is unable to draw the same advantage as Davydenko (bot have a DHBH), say against Nadal, so they are not the same. Murray does not take the ball early. Djokovic's DHBH is both a defensive and an offensive weapon, similar to Davydenko.

Tenez wrote:Djoko has yet to reach his peak probably

The DC withdrawal against Del Potro is not what I want to see Tennis become.

Tenez wrote:It's very simple LF if you observe with an open mind.

Does that imply that I have to agree with you?

Make up your mind......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-0-gdQEvcU MC 2006

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvZYFzsDC3o Rome 2006

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GI0zP1Tqh6I Federer clearly tanking it though but Murray is so poor that it explains only half the story.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3BgTGHBZzk . Most revealing clip of 2006. Federer starts well, on HC, but then goes on to lose his edge and loses v a Nadal hitting much shorter than today! Difficult to believe that today’s Federer would lose against this young Nadal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwJjNpoHJgg Shaghai 06 v Nadal. Much better from Fed but again, helped by faster conds where his BH doesn’t become a liability. Also Federer clearly better end of 2006 than Spring 2006 (dubai/MC).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1i9M0TNi26Q FO06 (second part)..again Fed losing his edge after a fantastic first set…then goes 2m behind the baseline to cut down shanking and gets moved corner to corner. And again, that’s not 2010 nor 2011 Nadal.

It does help to look back at those old clips and see how the game has progressed. Nadal’s shots are harder and longer today but Federer’s are also taken earlier and hit through with more purpose.

NOW you have to watch this!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9scg8dl5YXk Madrid 2011 Pace of rallies considerably faster thanks to players hitting harder and Federer flatter and taking the ball considerably earlier. As the commentator says, “Federer at his very best”! This Federer would have won 3 or 4 FO v 2005, 06 and 07 Nadal.

"The surfaces are much slower now, so you need to find different ways of winning the point, which is fine. I like to grind it out and go through 10, 20 shot rallies sometimes to win the point and break the opponent's will down. The game has definitely changed with strings and balls over the last 10 years."

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2011/06/25/Wimbledon-Tuesday-Federer-Wimbledon-Destiny.aspx

... and so can Federer....


Laverfan,
This is what I remember you suggested in another thread some time back. You bringing it the second time suggest that you truly believe that Federer can play the marathon-man game like Djo and Nadal. Look at your own piece of quotation you have brought here. He says 'sometimes', and this sometimes is very significant in this statement. He sure can do sometimes but not anything even close to what Djo, Nadal or even Murray can do. I said it earlier and saying it again since I believe it firmly that figuring out how to beat someone isn't that difficult but its the ability to execute it the most difficult part. Federer absolutely knew what kind of game Nadal played and what he needs to do to defeat him. Didn't Federer in all these years of losses to Nadal at FO figured out the Nadal kept pounding heavy top spinning high bouncing forehands to Fed's backhand. It was almost obvious. So he knew what could be the plan B. But whether he could do it, that is the difficult part. If he could play like what you are suggesting here, why didn't he try this on any of the 5 FO losses to Nadal. Why he still backed his own game aggressive game of going for winners all those times than staying back and grinding it out like you suggest. If he could, he would. This is very true for every player.

I completely have to agree with Tenez that with fatigue and tiredness and the longevity of the points and the match, the sharpness of the shots reduces drastically. I'll make it easier for you to understand. Why do you think Federer's backhand ends up in an error when Nadal keeps pounding it again and again. On clay primarily the ball bounces very high ( even over the shoulder at many times), and continuous hitting with a SHBH tires it down. Thats why as the point goes longer, Fed either will make stunning winner taking a huge risk shot, or (more often as we have seen) he misses the spot. Have you observed that the missed BH don't come in the earlier part of the rally. The longer the rally goes, more the chance that it will miss. SHBH gets tired much easily. and with that it loses its sharpness.

Look last year at USOpen 2010 (and all the earlier losses in the finals )how Djo tried to play against Nadal. He was looking to finish the point with a winner. Now that is difficult as the match goes on longer and longer. He lost the 4th set 2-6 making hell lot of unfored errors going to winners which became difficult with fatigue. This is just what happens most of the times when playing against a physical dominant player like Nadal. But now Djo has figured out he doesn't need to do anything different that what Nadal himself does. He has developed his fitness with diet etc to match Nadal. He is regularly winning against Nadal because now he can stay with him, play the same game and turn the tables. Federer though very fit which is attributed to his playing style ( and this fitness is different, its more about being injury free), unlike Djo, could never achieve that physicality to match Nadal. Ha can never play the game like what Nadal, Djo or Murray for anything longer than "sometimes".

Federer's primary problem these days is the physical nature of the game, slowness of the courts, different balls and his own age when he finds difficult to recover quickly enough after a match. If you see he can execute those down the line SHBH shots much more in the earlier part of the match, even on clay. but as the match goes longer, that SHBH tires and that shot become more difficult. He misses them more often, so much that its not even worth trying as its a risky shot and may not pay the dividend on slow condition against supreme retrievers. This is how Nadal had been playing all these years against Fed. This is where a stronger retriever has an advantage over a shot maker. Even when tired, chances of reaching the ball and making a return are greater than the chance of being able to accurately make a difficult spot on shot because hitting a spot is like shooting and has got to be more difficult than pulling up a ball back in play. Federer sure can play 5 sets well, but needs to be able to keep his accuracy of shots which becomes difficult because he often gets tired and loses that accuracy edge. The game Federer plays has very small margins for errors, and its difficult for him to keep it up as the match goes on because he can't make them as much because of fatigue. Nadal and Djo ( more now that before) play with a lot of margin for error, safer shots, which of course will be as often they don't look to hit an out right winner . That's why for them its easier to keep playing their game even in marathon rallys. This explains why Federer has a poor 5 set record and Nadal has the best in history till daye. And I do expect any disillusioned Nadal fan to bring the topic of "mental strenght" in here. But trust me its going to be even worse argument to put than the one that Federer can play the grinding 5 sets easily.

Exactly.

The parallel with biathlon is so obvious. In Biathlon they shoot 3 or 4 times with rounds of skying in betwen. And of course their accuracy drops as the race extends. They have the luxury though to stop and take a few good breath before shooting a fixed target.

In tennis, you can't stop at the end of a 8 shot rally take a breath, and pull a winnning BH along the line, unfortunately. The target is not fixed, it's a ball coming with pace and you cannot choose when to hit, you have to be ready and well positioned and if you want to avoid racing too much you'd better try to find the thin margins (above the net and close to the lines) to make your opponent do the running instead.

That is tennis! ...or was tennis. Some players today are actually happy doing the running and have enough power to also inflict their opponent with thin margins to do some running, helped by today's slow conds and strings giving them much more margins than in the 90s.

This is why Federer is more agressive nowadays...this is also why when he plays v Nadal and Djoko, it's all or nothing. He gets badly beaten like in Miami and Dubai or gets very close to beating them. More than ever he has to rely on the form of the day....make or break...it's his only solution.

Based on Tenez/Raiders arguments, it looks like the SHBH is the downfall of Federer, which I disagree with. Apart from the aesthetic appeal, it does provide the ability to generate very acute angles which a DHBH cannot.

Based on what I have seen so far, a DHBH can produce >= 30 degree angles while a SHBH can produce a >= 15 degree angle, but does require precise execution timing.

There are a few different solutions...

1) get a DHBH, which Federer is unlikely to,
2) Run-around FH, which exposes the court
3) Slice and Net approach, but loss of speed at an older age can create problems (Annacone is a big advocate of it though) and Federer does try.
4) Get fitter... (like the other members of Top 4)
5) Play only on faster, low-bouncing courts... not practical
6) Taking the ball even earlier than what he does now
7) The racquet change discussion (a topic by itself)

Watching Djokovic playing Nadal, pushing him close to the baseline is a risk that Djokovic takes and can generate enough angle and pace from FH or DHBH to win the point.

One issue that I see is the Federer slice on clay, is not as effective as on HC. The other is the mid-court balls that his BH now generates (even as a return of serve), which get hammered. The drop shot is an effective method against baseliners, but needs to be pin-point accurate and does require good net coverage.

Basel will be a good window to see what a well-rested Fed can do.

Federers serve is alot better consistency wise, but he used to be able to spike winners from the back of the court before his wrist issues. He was a more scary player back in the day

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Federers serve is alot better consistency wise, but he used to be able to spike winners from the back of the court before his wrist issues.

Wrist issues???

He was a more scary player back in the day

Unlike his opponents...

laverfan wrote:Based on Tenez/Raiders arguments, it looks like the SHBH is the downfall of Federer, which I disagree with. Apart from the aesthetic appeal, it does provide the ability to generate very acute angles which a DHBH cannot.

Based on what I have seen so far, a DHBH can produce >= 30 degree angles while a SHBH can produce a >= 15 degree angle, but does require precise execution timing.

Laverfan,
I would be able to appreciate your points more if you back it up with your reasoning. You say you don't agree that SHBH has been the reason for Federer's losses, yet you can't bring any points here. Just saying a 'I disagree' doesn't makeup for a good argument point. I've never said anything without reasoning and that's what I normally expect from sensible posters.

If you look at the Federer's matches against Nadal, can't you make out what is the obvious game plan Nadal is using. Why he keep hitting continuously to Federer's backhand in those long FH to BH cross court rallys? Because 1. It comes easy for Nadal being a lefty and and his playing style of using heavy spins which can keep th margins high for him 2. Federer has a single Handed BH and its difficult for SHBH to play high bouncing, heavy spinning balls. 3) Keep the rallys long and persuade Federer to try to hit a DTL shot. Down the line backhand is a very difficult shot. It needs to be hit over the higher part of the net and the timing needs to very accurate. else either it will catch the net or sail long or goes wide. The margin for error with that shot is very low. And as already said its precision decreases with a tired arm and believe me arm get tired much easily than legs, especially when its single handed. See the number of BH unforced error Federer has in those matches against Nadal and look how the pattern goes. Look at the lenght of most of those rallys which resulted in an BH unforced error, they will all be long. I'm not verifying this data but I've seen almost all those matches and can say that with every set that goes on, the number of Unforced errors from BH starts increasing drastically. Why is this so? Well, the reason was already stated.

Some time back a poster had provided some quotes from nadal's book. He clearly mentions what is his game plan vesus Federer. He just keep plugging in and sooner or later Federer will commit an Error. Why he keeps plugging in shot after shot ? Because he know he that SHBH can break down in long rallies when it gets tired. Try hitting continuous SHBH shots again and again against high balls, you'll know it how does it feel even after 5-6 shots.

Look at how Murray in his wins against Federer in 2008 managed to draw out BH errors from Federer. Murray BH is very solid can can continuously keeping playing long rallys with Federer. Though he is no way even close to what Nadal can do (Nadal being a lefty has a masive advantage here). Look at the shot placement of Djoko against Federer in the AO 2011 semis, about 70% of the points were hit at Federer's BH. Why do all these players do it to Fed's backhand? Its so obvious that the SHBH of his though a artistic weapon, yet can crumble if faced against force.

Federer himself said that in his younger days, his BH was very poor and so that he most of the times used to run around to take balls on his forehand. He said he even tried the DHBH, but it was painful to him at the chest region. He has manged to develop a beautiful and artistic BH, but there is no way it can be a solid shot like a DHBH.

Your point about the angles is right. I agree, but look at the playing conditions these days. Slow courts and slow balls encourage power hitters with a solid, high margin for error game. On these courts, its difficult for Federer to hit winners with that SHBH. Now at 30 that SHBH and his overall fitness isn't getting stronger. Look how many DTL BH shots he used to make in 2004-07 and how many he is able to do now. Players have become fitter, stronger and can retrieve shots which were almost unimaginable just few years back. This is just one of the important reasons why Federer doesn't look as good as he used to do earlier.

We can have another discussion as to why the tennis conditions have been changed, why are the courts made slower, where have the carpets gone and why are there so many clay tournaments going all the year, why ATP never thinks of elongating the grass season.

This debate ain't over yet

Berdych on the Paris semi:

I'm pretty confident to say that that's the old Roger like he was playing, you know, the years that he was really winning everything," said Berdych

But also:

Asked if he was playing the best he ever had at Bercy, a smiling Federer said: "Yes, I think. Let's say it: Yes, I do. It doesn't make any difference, but I think I'm more consistent now. I'm able to play several matches in a row, which I had a problem with before.

Here we go again....to all I have already said on the topic, I would add that the "present" Fed has more game and more options now. I reckon he'd get slaughtered now if he played like in 2006 (by good passers)

That's interesting GP though I am not sure I agree with Fed on his "ability to play several matches in a row". We know he is the king of bluff! However I believe he is a more complete player now. Does anyone has a link to interview?

I reckon he'd get slaughtered now if he played like in 2006 (by good passers)

Slaughtered might be a big word but yes I thnk he would struggle more. Just look at how much faster is Berdych nowdays compared to the 2006. And that applies to many players on tour. It's just tougher out there. Physically tougher cause shotmaking wise it's not as important as then. What counts nowadays is to put the ball in court...At the very top anyhow.

To add to your comment NITB, the best of Federer 06 (you know when he was in the zone) would still be better than Nadal and Djoko...but maybe not as good Federer's best of 09, 10 and 11.

"To add to your comment NITB, the best of Federer 06 (you know when he was in the zone) would still be better than Nadal and Djoko...but maybe not as good Federer's best of 09, 10 and 11. "

I don't mind agreeing to disagree with you , Tenez
Nole in the zone is impenetrable. It's a shame we'll never see them both "in the zone", the nature of their individual game relies heavily on imposing itself on the other one's game, I give Fed advantage on his serve (peak), but Nole on his return (peak)

NITB - The game is always in the attacker's racket when in the zone. It's a rule of tennis and sport in general.

Look at the FO ...and look more so at the USO. Federer got to MPs cause he was the agressive one. And Djoko managed to reverse that cause Fed played a safe 1st serve and Djoko finally decided to be 100% committed to agression. But we know Federer is the best at attacking by a long margin.

But I know you prefer to disagree on this one.

"But I know you prefer to disagree on this one. Wink"
Yes, but it's not a matter of preference, 'tis conviction

Koenig saying also that Federer played his best tennis ever in 11, especially at the FO.

Koenig saying also that Federer played his best tennis ever in 11, especially at the FO.

But he's been playing terrible on grass the last couple of years.

His last really good match on grass that I remember was 2009 semi against Haas, all downhill from there and picked up playing wimbledon 2010 where he left off in the previous final.

[/quote]But he's been playing terrible on grass the last couple of years.[/quote]

It's his sub-par return game that kills him on grass. He just makes his opponents feel too comfortable on their own serve. He rarely broke Tsonga, Roddick during those last few Wimbledons. Means he can't afford a few dips on his serve.

He wasnt playing bad against those guys, but just didnt make an impact on their serves.

Even Wimbledon 08 against Nadal was the same thing, he lost because of his return of serve, dumping backhand returns on breakpoints in the net for fun.

His return served him well during his peak years, but it doesnt seem up to the standard anymore. Nowadays you need to return like Djokovic.
Players are too fast now and have learned to hit top-spin on low balls that you cant fool them anymore with short chip returns.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

Koenig saying also that Federer played his best tennis ever in 11, especially at the FO.

But he's been playing terrible on grass the last couple of years.

Well if you compare an injured Federer with his full form, surely you will see a drop of form.

He played very well this year on grass until he pulled a muscle or something. He was exceptionally slow reacting v Tsonga after the first 2 sets. He clearly could not move as well on the return. In fact very much what happened to Murray too, most obvious v Nadal.

True, but I think we saw again today why '11 Federer doesn't convince me; one minute sublime, the next ineffective.

Today was just like Wimbledon; gets off to a flier and holds 1st set; gets tougher in 2nd but sneaks it on the breaker........ but today 2 sets was enough. A 5 setter today may just have gone the same way.

As I said we shoudl not forget that it was no different in 2006. Back then he coudl lose a set to a young Bagdhatis, struggle 76 76 76 v Ljubo in Miami's finals, losing to an inexperienced and half as fit Nadal in Dubai (tiring as well there after winning the first set?) and FO, saved 4 MP on grass v Rochus, etc...etc...

AndI woudl invite people to watch on youtube his match v Ljubo at Miami. I think Ljubo is a great player but frankly, no-one was challenging Federer physically in 2006, certainly not ljubo. Ljubo was never going to be the kind of player chasing Federer's shots and bring them back on court. No-one was doing that in 2006 bar Nadal. This is essentially why we think he could last longer then.

The thing is there was no Murray, No Djoko then. Ony Nadal coudl test him...and already then he did!

Take Djoko and Nadal out and Fed has 3 slams again in 2011!

I think most people wouldnt rate Luber/Blake/Roddick and Co. as highly as Murray, Djokovic, Delpo, Soderling, etc.

One of the big differences for Fed in 11 vs 06 is his serve, he's winning so many more free points now...its not that its faster but its become more solid, accurate and gets him out of trouble often on big points, his 2nd serve is stronger too. I also think his BH has improved alot, again its more consistent and he cal ralley against hardhitters much more now whereas before he was shanking under pressure. I wonder if he's changed his racquet set-up at all...otherwise I think he's mentally settled down alot now, perhaps he's happy with his lot and can swing his racquet freely now, he's not prone as much to moments of panic as before, so one benefit is he plays the bigger points better/more consistently, doesnt go for that big shot as early as he was doing say 18 months ago.

For those who aren't convinced yet!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gytH8lEUcs

I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree here Tenez. I can't say whether Federer is better now or then with any certainty, but I am sure that IMO his game was much smoother and more relaxed back in 2006. Look at this match vs Nalbandian in Madrid - his shots explode off the court with spin, and it looks like he's putting almost no effort in. It's also the intangible kind of things - the shot at 2.50, where he just toys with Nalbandian using his backhand...it seems like those kind of moments have become much rarer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnT-Wqnx47E

Having said that, it would be interesting to see a contest between the two versions of Federer. The fact that this discussion is even taking place is really a testament to his longevity.

Federer '06 would beat this version 2,3,3 in BO5.

The fact that people are wowed by the two, yes just two, BH's that he played in his last two matches, and consider them to be special shots when in previous years such shots were routine, run of the mill stuff, shows how far our expectations have fallen.

This must be the dumbest thread I have ever encountered.

emancipator wrote:Federer '06 would beat this version 2,3,3 in BO5.

The fact that people are wowed by the two, yes just two, BH's that he played in his last two matches, and consider them to be special shots when in previous years such shots were routine, run of the mill stuff, shows how far our expectations have fallen.

This must be the dumbest thread I have ever encountered.

I have to agree, though I'd leave the dumb thing out.

I know pundits are not necessarily always right, but when you have Wilander, Sampras, Koenig and now Federer saying that's 2011 had some of the best he has ever played, I wonder who the dumb comments belong to?

Emancipator dismissing the view of Federer himself on his own level doesn't make you very open minded on the matter. I understand that what Fed said might not be 100% true oraccurate but at least it's deserving a bit more of "dumb" concept!

Looks like you have shoot yourself on the foot there.

In terms of results Federer was winning more back then but then the depth of competition was easier so its hard to gauge. Federer has been knocking on the door of major tournaments all year to be fair...FO and USO particularly. That form could have won him trophies in previous years (although FO vs Nadal is always a tough call but this year was his best effort against Nadal at FO) and USO was MPs up against Nole as we know. Yes, he may not be quite as fast off the mark (although I dont think there's much in it and even 100m sprinters get faster into their 30s) but his game has evolved in other ways and I believe he's a more complete player now.

The problem he has is Nadal, Djokovic and Murray. Nadal has been a perennial problem that extended to all surfaces over time, Djokovic and Murray have become thorns as they have come into their own prime. I'm not so sure the Fed of 03-07 would have won the same number of slams had he been facing the competition he has today (but I acknowledge we can say that about many eras...e.g. had Sampras had to face the 80s crowd, or had Agassi not had to face Sampras, etc..). But Federer is still beating some of these latest threat top 10 players (who have beaten him too) with relative ease...and for me that marks his overall game has improved through better guile, serving, decision making and groundstroke solidity...that can more than make up for the loss of a few cms of lost movement - which is arguable.

Not often I agree with Tenez but I'm of the opinion the years Federer, particularly over the past few months, is a better all round player than previous years - its just that he's got 3 players ahead of him who are also still improving and pushing the game forwards.

Chazfazzer wrote:I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree here Tenez. I can't say whether Federer is better now or then with any certainty, but I am sure that IMO his game was much smoother and more relaxed back in 2006. Look at this match vs Nalbandian in Madrid - his shots explode off the court with spin, and it looks like he's putting almost no effort in. It's also the intangible kind of things - the shot at 2.50, where he just toys with Nalbandian using his backhand...it seems like those kind of moments have become much rarer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnT-Wqnx47E

Having said that, it would be interesting to see a contest between the two versions of Federer. The fact that this discussion is even taking place is really a testament to his longevity.

Good points Chazz and great video. But as I said many times, It was different tennis, on a probaby faster conds. Points were kept short by both players and that allowed teh explosiveness to stay longer over the match. Nalbandian was feeding Federer with a ball easy to strike. Heavy certainly but well hit and the shots were flying. Nowadays withe teh extra spin, Fed needs to create the pace and teh timing is much tougher.

I am sure you realise Fed never played as well as in your clip v Nadal, even in 2006, as he was playing v Nalbandian. He had to adapt to the new spiny ball and longer rallies, seeing his great shots coming back when v Nalbandian they didn't. If anything Federer looked almost ugly when facing Nadal. It's only mid and end of 2007 that he started to get used to Nadal's game. Look how he struggled already with Djoko and Murray at first who also were able to chase his shots down. Nadal, Djoko and Murray have progressed hugely in teh last 3 years and so has teh rest of the tour.

I am of the view of NITB. Fed 2006 woudl really have it tough against the top 3....except on a day like you are showing in that Madrid clip but could he have played that well after 9 or 10 25 shot rallies?

I believe he's a more complete player now.

In what way?

Some points include:

+ Less shanking on the BH (he's always done that prior to this year, its improved alot in 2011)
+ Less over-hitting on the FH
+ Better serve all round - its a potent weapon now (given the returners of today are better he's still winning loads of free points)
+ Able to produce his best serves on BPs - better consistency on 1st and 2nd
+ Better decision making in key moments given ralleys are longer now than before - doesnt pull the trigger too soon as much
+ Volleying more than before, prepared to kill the point at the net quicker
+ Using more variety - chipping/rushing alot, slicing, driving, and his drop-shot has improved out of sight
+ Fitness as good as ever, maybe even better - fatigue hasnt been an issue, or rather it hasnt slipped given his advancing age - impressive!
+ Given the stellar year Nole has had (can he repeat that ever again?), no-one has pushed him harder than Fed...beat him at FO, and arguably should have done the same at USO if not for that russian roulette return from Nole...I dont think the Federer of 2006 would have competed as strongly against the 2011 Djokovic.

Oh and the hot-dog has definitely come on!

lydian wrote:Not often I agree with Tenez but I'm of the opinion the years Federer, particularly over the past few months, is a better all round player than previous years - its just that he's got 3 players ahead of him who are also still improving and pushing the game forwards.

I agree with your conclusion but I don;t agree on saying that today there is more depth in tennis. no more than next year will have more depth but less than teh year after next. The game evolves with technology and other sciences. That's the key and younger players learn how to make the most of technology and science faster than those who learnt their games with different strings, surfaces or compression chamber.

For instance to take our main point of argument, Nadal and Djoko could not play their game if the referee was applying the 20s rules. As simple as that. So clearly again, tennis keeps changing: rhythm of play, rules, conds, strings diet etc and that the players like Murray Nadal and Djoko are taking full advantage of those changes. When it comes to ball stricking, I think this new generation is actually not as good as Nalby, Davydenko, Ljubo, Blake and others who have learnt the game with natural gut and technique and timing was key to win matches. Nowadays lungs and court coverage are more important than ball stricking. Murray can afford to win a TMS, just slicing his BH and looping his FH. That's the difference for Fed, not the depth in tennis today. In 3 or 4 years I guarantee you that Nadal and DJoko will look old schools too.

"In 3 or 4 years I guarantee you that Nadal and DJoko will look old schools too. "

Scary. How do you see the "new" school?

noleisthebest wrote:"In 3 or 4 years I guarantee you that Nadal and DJoko will look old schools too. "

Scary. How do you see the "new" school?

We have glimpsed of that already with guys like Delpo or Dolgo. Different styles but they can blast off the court those players who are so good at retrieving. For now they can;t do it for long enough but in 2 years, they will have the confidence and stamina to do it over 5 sets. If not them others will.

We might also have new technology on teh way and/or faster courts or balls helping them.

I don;t think any of the those guys will have the talent to adapt like Federer did. When Federer got those luxilon string for the first time, it gave him a huge boost of confidence on his FH as well as Bh which used to be worse when younger. But had he learnt the game with those strings his style may have been slightly different. I am pretty sure had he developed his game v Nadal instead of Sampras and Goran, he woudl have found the key to Nadal's game long ago....with even more ease than Djoko did.

I think those are fair points Tenez, what I mean by depth is that there are alot of players in the top 10-15 who on their day can do alot of damage to the top 4 guys due to the game being more of a grind now. Ball strikers like Soderling, Delpo, Nole, etc, are all tough to beat in every match. It didnt feel like in yesteryear when the guys would blow hot and cold more. I do believe that Murray is more talented that Lubjicic though...but we know the game has become more ralley based these days so the guys play a different game now by necessity.

Depends what you mean by old-school...if its more and more ralleying then lord help us all, otherwise nothing will change until the court conditions are speeded up. I'm not sure the guys can get anymore stamina than Nadal/Nole in particular without breaking down injury wise, I think that plateau has been reached, and the game will move back to a different style hoepfully catalysed by shorter ralleys. Also, how much further can racquet and string technology go without it requiring new rules to be agreed...? I think we're plateauing with tech too. What we need are faster conditions to allow the better tech from the past 10 yrs to balance out.

If Federer is a more complete player now technically than he used to be it is only because he has to be in order to counteract the deterioration in movement and reflexes.

And he is not a 'few cms slower', he is considerably slower and less agile.

Watching his older vids one can see that he was incredibly quick, just as fast as the other top 3 are today. His defense was much better.

His better movement meant that he was in place to execute and thus did so effectively.

Nowadays he struggles to hold the baseline and is easily stretched and consequently ends up misfiring.

The key to Fed's game has always been incredible movement and court positioning allowing him to take the ball early and thus dictate; he can nolonger do that as effectively. He is bullied off the baseline by players he would have toyed with a few years ago.

As for pundits stating that he is better than ever, well of course they'd say that. Part of their job is too generate interest by overhyping and sensationalising. Besides, I expect the likes of Sampras (btw when did he say that Fed is better now than he used to be?) have not even seen a small percentage of the Federer matches that his fans have. They probably never go back and watch old videos. Pundits can never be taken seriously with regards to such claims. Their opinions change according to the latest result.

Lydian,

Puhlease. The bane of Federer's game over the last few years has been inconsistency, both between and during matches.

He is much more of a shanker than he used to be. His BH most certainly is not more stable and his FH definitely does not have the same penetration as it used to do. He is not as clutch as he used to be. How many times have we seen Federer in recent years run away with the first set and then get embroiled in an error-strewn tight second and third set? (It almost happened again today) He used to win those matches going away.

Finally, did peak Fed lose in slams to the likes of Berdy, Sod, Tsonga even after leading? These guys are relative nobodys. Every era has their equivalent. Fed used to bully those guys and expose their poorer movement. Nowadays it is often the other way around. Is it a surprise that Federer's record against most of the tour is getting worse relative to his heyday? I'm referring to guys that he's previously owned for years such as the three already mentioned. How about losing last year to Hewitt, Davy, Roddick (yes even Roddick who'd only managed one previous win out of a million attempts way back in 2003 before Fed became Fed), or the likes of Monfils.. indeed the list goes on.

All of this points to a player in decline.. albeit a slow decline. It is nonsensical to assume that a player with 1000 tour matches (in one of the most physically demanding sports) is going to be playing at his peak at the age of 30. Even moreso when the obvious signs of decline are readily apparent.



emancipator

Tenez wrote: I am pretty sure had he developed his game v Nadal instead of Sampras and Goran, he woudl have found teh key to Nadal's game long ago.

I'm not sure about that, Nadal is just a bad match-up for him anywhere outside an indoor fast court, plus Nadal may have found additional keys to keep him pushing Federer had they started playing sooner. Nadal is a pretty good learner and tactician also. Federer was also brought up on clay, not fast courts, so I think this allowed him to adapt to Nadal pretty quickly anyway. But again the bad match-up has dictated events. After all, we're 6-7 yrs down the line of them playing and he doesnt appear to be much nearer cracking Nadal (who has beaten him a few times this year, a year we're saying Federer is a better player in, I'm not sure its been a peak year for Nadal though).