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.

lydian wrote: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.

BUt the stats seem to say otherwise. In 2005/6 bar Federer (who we all agree now is one-in-a century exception), top 4 or 5 players could really be beaten by any top 20, and there was lots of mouvement in the ranking, whereas now, the court coverage and stamina of the top 4 is simply blocking the chance of any upset, especially in slams where physique makes a big difference. What we are seeing now is that the top 4 are extremelly hard to beat and as good as Tsonga, Berdych or Sod are they can't do much against those top 4...in slams. I am pretty sure had Fed been healthy at WImbledon, he would have won v Berdych and Tsonga, especially Berdych. SO yes there is the injury factor, but if healthy it's all about the top 4..thus far...but that can change.

emancipator wrote: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.

???? Oh dear!!!!

Some say he lost all his teeth and walks with the help of a stick and blind dog.

Where is this hand/face icon?

Forget the top 4 because people have their agendas to run by hyping them up; the giveaway about Federers standard now is the losses to the likes of Slappy Tsonga, who is exactly the sort of player he always owned. They used to say that Roger ate big hitters for breakfast - well this year he was blasted off court by Berdych in Cincy, and there's been more of that elsewhere.

What Roger has lost massively is the speed of reaction; he has very bad returning statistics these days and really it's his serve consistency that keeps him in it nowadays.

I can understand fans of Nadal, Djokovic and Murray trying to convince themselves that Federer has become the first player ever to get better after 30 than at any time in his 20's because of course that only inflates their own favourites achievements, but it requires us to believe that also all the other members of the top 8 or 10 are better than they've ever been too. Yeah, they're all so good that none of them barely makes a Slam semi and none at all win a Masters. But that's because the top 3 are superhuman isn't it? Even Andy, with his hopeless forehand, is supposed to be part of some mega-era that surpasses all else.

bogbrush wrote:Forget the top 4 because people have their agendas to run by hyping them up; the giveaway about Federers standard now is the losses to the likes of Slappy Tsonga, who is exactly the sort of player he always owned. They used to say that Roger ate big hitters for breakfast - well this year he was blasted off court by Berdych in Cincy, and there's been more of that elsewhere.

What Roger has lost massively is the speed of reaction; he has very bad returning statistics these days and really it's his serve consistency that keeps him in it nowadays.

I can understand fans of Nadal, Djokovic and Murray trying to convince themselves that Federer has become the first player ever to get better after 30 than at any time in his 20's because of course that only inflates their own favourites achievements, but it requires us to believe that also all the other members of the top 8 or 10 are better than they've ever been too. Yeah, they're all so good that none of them barely makes a Slam semi and none at all win a Masters. But that's because the top 3 are superhuman isn't it? Even Andy, with his hopeless forehand, is supposed to be part of some mega-era that surpasses all else.

Interesting.
so who were the "slappy" Tsongas of the past: Roddick?
which big hitters did he eat for breakfast: Gonzo and Blake?

Much as Baghdats and Hewitt are convenient to be compared to today's "retrievers" they are a class below in every aspect, starting with talent.

Safin? I'm a woman so can't be impartial

Federer has become the first player ever to get better after 30

To be fair, Agassi was playing some of arguably his best tennis when he was approaching his mid thirties. Having said that, Federer and Agassi are very different kinds of players.

Wasn't it you BB that said Federer never being injured was a myth? Then you know what I mean. His loss to Tsonga at Wimbledon is no different than his loss to Berdych teh year before. A clear drop of mouvement.

he returned Tsonga serve very well todaty and at the USO. That clear;y answers his recent losses at Wimbledon.

Roger hasn't lost any speed of reaction. Stepanek best year was after his 30 and he is one that needs clearly speedy reactions with his SVing game. Same for Ljubo whose shots got more weight and timing after 30. Did you see the clip I posted earlier about Fed's 2011 best shots? He is amazingly fast on his legs and amazing quick hands too.

Regarding your last paragraph we coudl say the same about Fed fans not wanting to consider objetively that Federer coudl be beaten by modern players. I am a huge fan of Federer but I know there are more factors out there playing a role than talent. In fact talent is unfortunately a small factor in today's tennis unless you are actually Federer. He still can beat amazingly fit young players who have made the most of modern technology and science. You watched the last USO final and you know clearly what it takes to beat those guys. It was a tennis so different from Nalbandian and Ljubo's. Agassi put it simply ad accurately: "It's a different game!"

The fact that Federer adapted to it...and he is clearly the only one (remember Hewitt, Nalby, Gonzo, Ferrero, Roddick?) is just a testimony of his hard work and genius.

A few months ago I saw Monfils beating Nalbandian. That to me was clearly when I understood the end of an era. Nalbandian wasn't playing badly actually. He hit great shots but Monfils scrambled on every point, scooping his FH and BH until Nalby was forced to a mistake.

Different times.

After watching Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Stan Smith, seeing Borg, McEnroe and Connors arrive was a revelation and the 'emotional' attachment to the 60/70s was hard to give up.

Edberg, Becker, Wilander, Lendl, Sampras, Agassi showing up made it harder to go through the cycle again and stop thinking abut Vilas, Gerulaitis, Panatta, Borg, McEnroe, Connors (to some extent).

The same cycle repeats, with an unpredictable frequency, based on when a new prodigy shows up, for example, Federer in 2001, who very successfully carried his junior career to the Mens.

Nadal (to some extent) and now Djokovic, Murray, etc., and another cycle is already in progress.

I used to think Rosewall improved throughout his career and to me was the epitome of longevity, an aberration in Tennis history. Federer may perhaps be the next Rosewall. He will continue to learn and improve as a player, till the day he hangs up his racquet.

The number of titles or a collection of shots is not a true measure of a player and perhaps is a travesty of a tennis career being condensed into a few pages or such a discussion.

Tennis has given me memories which I would not exchange for anything else, be it Djokovic or Pancho, Federer or Laver, Borg or Sampras.

I, personally, do not care an iota if Federer 2006 was better or Federer 2011 is better. They are both fantastic versions, and for me there is no distinction or separation between the two.

Tenez wrote:A few months ago I saw Monfils beating Nalbandian. That to me was clearly when I understood the end of an era. Nalbandian wasn't playing badly actually. He hit great shots but Monfils scrambled on every point, scooping his FH and BH until Nalby was forced to a mistake.

Different times.

I know what you mean, but I'm still able to enjoy tennis. There is still a lot of variety of styles and characters around. Who could have predicted 2011 to be a year of such dominance of Novak Djokovic?

You just never know what's lurking around the corner, it may not all be bad news, after all...

I really look forward to 2012 mainly as all top players are not far off their peak and in the game for winning slams, and they are all very hot on winning gold in London., as well, which means they will be all wanting to peak come summer.

laverfan wrote:After watching Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Stan Smith, seeing Borg, McEnroe and Connors arrive was a revelation and the 'emotional' attachment to the 60/70s was hard to give up.

Edberg, Becker, Wilander, Lendl, Sampras, Agassi showing up made it harder to go through the cycle again and stop thinking abut Vilas, Gerulaitis, Panatta, Borg, McEnroe, Connors (to some extent).

The same cycle repeats, with an unpredictable frequency, based on when a new prodigy shows up, for example, Federer in 2001, who very successfully carried his junior career to the Mens.

Nadal (to some extent) and now Djokovic, Murray, etc., and another cycle is already in progress.

I used to think Rosewall improved throughout his career and to me was the epitome of longevity, an aberration in Tennis history. Federer may perhaps be the next Rosewall. He will continue to learn and improve as a player, till the day he hangs up his racquet.

The number of titles or a collection of shots is not a true measure of a player and perhaps is a travesty of a tennis career being condensed into a few pages or such a discussion.

Tennis has given me memories which I would not exchange for anything else, be it Djokovic or Pancho, Federer or Laver, Borg or Sampras.

I, personally, do not care an iota if Federer 2006 was better or Federer 2011 is better. They are both fantastic versions, and for me there is no distinction or separation between the two.

Thanks for that sagely insight LF

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:A few months ago I saw Monfils beating Nalbandian. That to me was clearly when I understood the end of an era. Nalbandian wasn't playing badly actually. He hit great shots but Monfils scrambled on every point, scooping his FH and BH until Nalby was forced to a mistake.

Different times.

I know what you mean, but I'm still able to enjoy tennis. There is still a lot of variety of styles and characters around. Who could have predicted 2011 to be a year of such dominance of Novak Djokovic?

You just never know what's lurking around the corner, it may not all be bad news, after all...

I really look forward to 2012 mainly as all top players are not far off their peak and in the game for winning slams, and they are all very hot on winning gold in London., as well, which means they will be all wanting to peak come summer.

I enjoy it too. I even enjoyed the USO final. But I would not like many repeats of those. I like to watch and measure the talented side of the game, and because it's sport, that talent has to deliver otherwse it's frustrating. You see it in Djoko, I see it in Leander Paes, Davydenko, Llodra, Ljubo, Nalby...names that make people laugh but for me they are more talented than a few of the top players.

noleisthebest wrote:Thanks for that sagely insight LF.

I have fond memories of yesterday. I enjoy what is present in front of me and eagerly anticipate what is to come in the future.

laverfan An admirable perspective from which to view and enjoy this wonderful game ; and thanks for your excellent post at 12.10am above

Tenez, I think we're all able to see talent in different players...and appreciate different styles. Sometimes I think we;re arguing the same toss of the coin in here...
PS> I'm not suffering from insomnia, just in the US!

Tenez wrote:A few months ago I saw Monfils beating Nalbandian. That to me was clearly when I understood the end of an era. Nalbandian wasn't playing badly actually. He hit great shots but Monfils scrambled on every point, scooping his FH and BH until Nalby was forced to a mistake.

Different times.

I can't watch Monfils*. It's like he takes retrieving and then decides to hit such garbage that he'll be able to show how much he can run. Funny thing is, against good players he often runs out of gas!
Then he gets bored and slaps them all over the place, with the odd one going in and helping him maintain the illusion that he's a great player.

* any more; obviously from this I have watched him in the past!

lydian wrote:Tenez, I think we're all able to see talent in different players...and appreciate different styles. Sometimes I think we;re arguing the same toss of the coin in here...
PS> I'm not suffering from insomnia, just in the US!

I too see different talents. I saw Lendl's talent as being different of McEnroe's or different of Borg's like I see Coria's Naby's etc...but what I cannot see anymore is the physical talent. Today no-one really knows which is the acquired one and which is the natural one. So I am not considering physical talent as a real talent anymore. To me Borg was a natural talent, now they are all faster and last longer so it's impossible to appreciate the natural site of it.

I didn't see the full Tsonga match, just seen highlights on youtube. From that I'm not convinced Roger is back to his best, there's no variety on his backhand, no down the line passing shots. He just guides the ball cross-court and hopes the opponent makes an error moving to the net.

bogbrush wrote:I can't watch Monfils*. It's like he takes retrieving and then decides to hit such garbage that he'll be able to show how much he can run. Funny thing is, against good players he often runs out of gas!
Then he gets bored and slaps them all over the place, with the odd one going in and helping him maintain the illusion that he's a great player.

* any more; obviously from this I have watched him in the past!

A pretty accurate description.

droogle wrote:I didn't see the full Tsonga match, just seen highlights on youtube. From that I'm not convinced Roger is back to his best, there's no variety on his backhand, no down the line passing shots. He just guides the ball cross-court and hopes the opponent makes an error moving to the net.

On those slow surfaces there is no point trying too many DTL BH. It's suicidal! But he has hit enough of those recently to know, it's still there. If anything amny agree that his BH is better now than then.

I thought Peter Fleming nailed it on the head yesterday when he said that when coming up against an super defender in Nadal, Federer became ultra-aggressive in his play. Peter also said that Federer is now stringing out points instead of trying to kill them off in 2-3 stroke rallies. He also thought that Basel and Paris is the best he has see him play since 2005.

I agreed with that, but there have been performances though from Fed that have resembled that of the last 2-3 weeks play.

legendkillar wrote:I thought Peter Fleming nailed it on the head yesterday when he said that when coming up against an super defender in Nadal, Federer became ultra-aggressive in his play. Peter also said that Federer is now stringing out points instead of trying to kill them off in 2-3 stroke rallies. He also thought that Basel and Paris is the best he has see him play since 2005.

I agreed with that, but there have been performances though from Fed that have resembled that of the last 2-3 weeks play.

So Flemming thinks 2005 is Federer's peak? I think he was playing extrememly well and improved till 2007 but we have to realise that having watched him in 2001 then 2003, the wow factor of the first years started to wear off. We get used to a player's talent and therefore the first years, especially before the competition adapts are often seen as teh best years. The fact is that Federer had trouble in 2005/6/ timing (BH and FH) Nadal's shots.

WHat Flemming says is partly right cause in 2009 and even 2011, Federer realised he could not quite rally with Nadal. He knows that he has to execute perfectly to have a chance to win v Nadal and that there is no point trying to rally to long against Nadal as his sharpness deteriorates quickly. Sure not rush like a headless chicken but he also knows he hasn't got Djoko's lungs and pace to do what Djoko does. In fact he never had. That's why he is actually more agressive since end of 2010 (Anacone) than he was before.

If we look at Agassi, how many woudl have thought his 30+ years were his best? People have no problem recognising they were cause that's when he got most slams. That is our measuring stick but it shoudl not cause in tennis the opposition is teh main factor and that one is constantly changing, progressing.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:I thought Peter Fleming nailed it on the head yesterday when he said that when coming up against an super defender in Nadal, Federer became ultra-aggressive in his play. Peter also said that Federer is now stringing out points instead of trying to kill them off in 2-3 stroke rallies. He also thought that Basel and Paris is the best he has see him play since 2005.

I agreed with that, but there have been performances though from Fed that have resembled that of the last 2-3 weeks play.

So Flemming thinks 2005 is Federer's peak? I think he was playing extrememly well and improved till 2007 but we have to realise that having watched him in 2001 then 2003, the wow factor of the first years started to wear off. We get used to a player's talent and therefore the first years, especially before the competition adapts are often seen as teh best years. The fact is that Federer had trouble in 2005/6/ timing (BH and FH) Nadal's shots.

WHat Flemming says is partly right cause in 2009 and even 2011, Federer realised he could not quite rally with Nadal. He knows that he has to execute perfectly to have a chance to win v Nadal and that there is no point trying to rally to long against Nadal as his sharpness deteriorates quickly. Sure not rush like a headless chicken but he also knows he hasn't got Djoko's lungs and pace to do what Djoko does. In fact he never had. That's why he is actually more agressive since end of 2010 (Anacone) than he was before.

If we look at Agassi, how many woudl have thought his 30+ years were his best? People have no problem recognising they were cause that's when he got most slams. That is our measuring stick but it shoudl not cause in tennis the opposition is teh main factor and that one is constantly changing, progressing.

I think Peter was looking up up until 2006 as Roger's peak and in term of having the right game. His point was more to how Nadal changed Roger's game against over players too by becoming much more aggressive.

He felt Annacone has helped Roger improve his chip and charge play and that the Roger he has seen in the last 2-3 weeks resembles something of the 2005-06 model he was used to.

I agreed with his points to a degree given the success he still had from 08-onwards and to some of his performances that have not resulted in the 'deserved' success category.

How can Federer from 2006 be better than 2011, when he says the following...

“Almost cramped in my biceps,” he joked. “I have had like two or three other ones that have been very, very heavy. One was in Gstaad. I got a rock there. I could hardly lift it. I don't know where else, but there was some other place I could barely not lift the trophy. But this one I could. This is steel, so you can imagine how strong I am. (Laughter.)”

“I was hoping that during the night it would go well, but suddenly I was running with Mirka in the room to see if everything was okay. And she said, ‘Let's take her in our bed.’ I said, ‘Okay, let's do that.’ I didn't even question this. I just said okay. I can't have a fight at 4:00 in the morning with her.”

Federer in 2006 would not have had any such issues lifting a heavy trophy or did not have to run around at 4am to pacify a child!

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2011/11/45/Paris-Final-Federer-Early-Wake-Up-Call.aspx

legendkillar wrote:I think Peter was looking up up until 2006 as Roger's peak and in term of having the right game. His point was more to how Nadal changed Roger's game against over players too by becoming much more aggressive.

He felt Annacone has helped Roger improve his chip and charge play and that the Roger he has seen in the last 2-3 weeks resembles something of the 2005-06 model he was used to.

I agreed with his points to a degree given the success he still had from 08-onwards and to some of his performances that have not resulted in the 'deserved' success category.

To me it's very clear that the Federer of 2009-2011 woudl have never lost v Nadal 2006 be it Nadal's clay or Dubai's.

I think it's obvious that a players knowledge and tactics evolve positively throughout his career; I am sure that Pete Sampras has a better tennis brain now than when he got all his Slams. Federer has benefitted from this, hence he's suppressed a few weaknesses and developed the one shot they always keep right to the end, the serve.

Where Fed is lacking is, imho, reaction and movement. Even on the gritty treacle that was Paris last week, Tsonga was able to knock him off the court when it came together. A few years back Fed was untouchable at being the guy who could absorb power and turn it back. Cincinatti was a shock, to see Berdy more or less blow him off court.

The return of serve is now quite depressing to watch. Late, with an alarmingly low % of balls back in play. These things are irresistably stolen by time, and they matter a lot to Federer.

So, better tactics, better knowledge, better serve, but the pin point sharpness isn't there except in flashes, and after a few sets he can become quite blunt.

Yes I agree with BB. What federer has gained does not make up for what he has lost.

Essentially the overall package is less effective than it used to be.

Federer was serving fantastically yesterday. Posting 89% was astonishing given Tsonga wasn't serving or playing poorly, especially the 2nd set. I agree with BB that players lose more than they gain towards the back end of their careers.

In a nutshell...YES! He won more and was untouchable apart from the clay courts and the odd blip here and there!

noleisthebest wrote:

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.

From Sep 28, 2011 on 606v2, we now have a complete circle.

bogbrush wrote:Where Fed is lacking is, imho, reaction and movement.

It's not clear cut. What's the point in having more mouvement and reaction time if he was shanking and misfiring more then than now? It doesn't matter how quick one is if his/her shots are less secure. Watch Pete in his last USO. He made almost zero mistakes. All his shots were perfectly timed and he was as smooth as ever and he himself knows that.

Even on the gritty treacle that was Paris last week, Tsonga was able to knock him off the court when it came together. A few years back Fed was untouchable at being the guy who could absorb power and turn it back. Cincinatti was a shock, to see Berdy more or less blow him off court.

But those guys were much younger then. They have progressed hugely. Have a look at Berdych 's legs in 2006 and now! It's a completely different athlete. Who do you see in 2006 that coudl compare to the Berdych and Tsonga of now? Not even Safin as he is a much slower version of Tsonga. Nadal in 2006 was not very good, a young Tsonga coudl make him very average thanks to a perfect display. How do you explain the super Federer of 2006 having very tight matches v rooted Ljubo? much tighter in fact than the score yesterday v Tsonga:

2006 Tennis Masters Cup
China Hard RR Federer, Roger
7-6(2), 6-4 Stats
2006 ATP Masters Series Miami
FL, U.S.A. Hard F Federer, Roger
7-6(5), 7-6(4), 7-6(6) Stats
2006 ATP Masters Series Indian Wells
CA, U.S.A. Hard Q Federer, Roger
6-2, 6-3 Stats
2005 Tennis Masters Cup
Shanghai, China Carpet RR Federer, Roger
6-3, 2-6, 7-6(4) Stats
2005 ATP Masters Series Indian Wells
California, USA Hard R16 Federer, Roger
7-6(3), 7-6(4) Stats
2005 Dubai
U.A.E. Hard F Federer, Roger
6-1, 6-7(6), 6-3 Stats
2005 Rotterdam
The Netherlands Hard F Federer, Roger
5-7, 7-5, 7-6(5) Stats

The return of serve is now quite depressing to watch. Late, with an alarmingly low % of balls back in play. These things are irresistably stolen by time, and they matter a lot to Federer.

So, better tactics, better knowledge, better serve, but the pin point sharpness isn't there except in flashes, and after a few sets he can become quite blunt

I only agree with what's in bold. But again, that's due to the much more physical nature of now compared to then. You forget all those matches he lost over teh distance v Hewitt, Nalby, Nadal..already then. How do you explain cyclists peak at 30+? Cadel Evans was 34 this year when he finally become good enough to win teh tour...like Riis and many others.

FedsFan wrote:In a nutshell...YES! He won more and was untouchable apart from the clay courts and the odd blip here and there!

But that is a completely biased approach. He won more therefore he was better. Had we talked about a 100m race, I coudl understand he ran faster therefore he was quicker. Sure But Federer was not playing against the clock but against an opposition constantly adapting and improving! An opposition that saw ALL Federer's generation slipped back the ranking but him! Are yu saying that all of Fed's generation are injured?

It woudl be absurd to consider the Federer's H2H v Djoko based on Federer's form alone. The form of teh guy in front is also to be considered.

2006 Tennis Masters Cup
China Hard RR Federer, Roger
7-6(2), 6-4 Stats
2006 ATP Masters Series Miami
FL, U.S.A. Hard F Federer, Roger
7-6(5), 7-6(4), 7-6(6) Stats
2006 ATP Masters Series Indian Wells
CA, U.S.A. Hard Q Federer, Roger
6-2, 6-3 Stats
2005 Tennis Masters Cup
Shanghai, China Carpet RR Federer, Roger
6-3, 2-6, 7-6(4) Stats
2005 ATP Masters Series Indian Wells
California, USA Hard R16 Federer, Roger
7-6(3), 7-6(4) Stats
2005 Dubai
U.A.E. Hard F Federer, Roger
6-1, 6-7(6), 6-3 Stats
2005 Rotterdam
The Netherlands Hard F Federer, Roger
5-7, 7-5, 7-6(5) Stats
----------------------------

Imagine if you had seen scores like that v Ljubo in 2011....then you coudl say he's dropped form dramatically...but those scores were in fact of 2005 and 2006!!!! the great years of Federer!!!!...And some of those were finals!!! imagine who else Ljubo beat on the way!

What does 'better' mean?

I'd like to put it this way: if Fed now played Fed of five years ago the younger man would win comfortably.. and he would win with worse tennis!

Tenez wrote:2006 Tennis Masters Cup
China Hard RR Federer, Roger
7-6(2), 6-4 Stats - BPs saved - 83% (5/6), 50% (2/4)
2006 ATP Masters Series Miami
FL, U.S.A. Hard F Federer, Roger
7-6(5), 7-6(4), 7-6(6) Stats - BPs saved - 71% (5/7), 71%(5/7)
2006 ATP Masters Series Indian Wells
CA, U.S.A. Hard Q Federer, Roger
6-2, 6-3 Stats - BPs saved - 100% (1/1), 57% (4/7)
2005 Tennis Masters Cup
Shanghai, China Carpet RR Federer, Roger
6-3, 2-6, 7-6(4) Stats - BPs saved - 40% (2/5), 77% (7/9)
2005 ATP Masters Series Indian Wells
California, USA Hard R16 Federer, Roger
7-6(3), 7-6(4) Stats - BPs saved - 0% (0/0), 100% (1/1)
2005 Dubai
U.A.E. Hard F Federer, Roger
6-1, 6-7(6), 6-3 Stats - BPs saved - 71% (5/7), 28% (2/7)
2005 Rotterdam
The Netherlands Hard F Federer, Roger
5-7, 7-5, 7-6(5) Stats - BPs saved - 66% (2/3), 83% (5/6)

Based on the BPs in each match, if Federer was successful (despite Looby's serve) to successfully get breaks, he would win much more easily.

LF - Can you pull a list of all Fed's matches and results of 2006?

Of course he was better at 25. What kind of question is that?

This argument will run and run (although you could say that it would not run quite so quickly in 2011 as it would have run in 2006, or WOULD IT?) More seriously, Fed in 2011 is still able to play to a very high standard and to either beat, or at least give a very good game to, the other four guys.
You could argue that he IS playing as well as four or five years ago and that the only reason he's fourth and not first is that the others have improved. Just been watching some clips from Fed's final v Gonzo in AO (very attacking and unbelievable movement) and against Roddick at Wimbledon in 09 (rather defensive). Reckon Fed is between these two extremes now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjW-0K6X8jc

shanghai masters cup final 2006.

Watch this and then tell me if you really think fed's BH is better than it used to be.

emancipator wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjW-0K6X8jc

shanghai masters cup final 2006.

Watch this and then tell me if you really think fed's BH is better than it used to be.

I have spent 6 full pages of this forum explaining that the ball Blake sent on those fast courts has nothing to do with the 25 spinny balls Nadal and Djoko send back in one rally alone!

And Fed's tennis at WTF 10 is at least as good. Especially v Djoko!

Indeed.. and your convoluted arguements are so convincing that... no one seems to be agreeing with you

sirfredperry wrote:This argument will run and run (although you could say that it would not run quite so quickly in 2011 as it would have run in 2006, or WOULD IT?) More seriously, Fed in 2011 is still able to play to a very high standard and to either beat, or at least give a very good game to, the other four guys.
You could argue that he IS playing as well as four or five years ago and that the only reason he's fourth and not first is that the others have improved. Just been watching some clips from Fed's final v Gonzo in AO (very attacking and unbelievable movement) and against Roddick at Wimbledon in 09 (rather defensive). Reckon Fed is between these two extremes now.

This WImbledon final is a poor represention of Federer' tennis that forthnight at Wimbledon. I remember it was very windy and that acted as a leveler. Federer coudl never feel relaxed in that final. He knew it was his to lose!

Why is Federer that good indoors? Cause conds are still there and it allows him to make the most of that talent he has. This was true in 2006 and still in 2011. This is why people who think Fed was better in 2006 always refer to indoors matches. In 2011 he can time the ball as well outdoors.

To me the best tennis I have seen him play v his nemesis starts in AO09...for the first 4 sets. He should have closed crucial points and win that one in 3 or 4 but lost in 5. (another example of Ws and Ls not telling the whole story about form). It's no surprisehe went to win teh FO and Wimbledon that year like he certainly shoudl have won USO 09! (he threw away balls for double break in that second set and coudl have made his final v Delpo as one sided as his semi v the same player in AO09). Then his best tennis on clay is in Madrid 2009...not 2006. But yet he played even better in FO11 where he was not far of beating Nadal on clay in 3 sets. It's plain obvious.

Then his form is more patchy from 2009 but his peaks are even better than then, cause at least we can say that he is more tested than he ever was in 2006/7/8 and even 9 and 10.

Seeing last year's WTF final live and quite close-up, I can verify that Federer's backhand was breath-takingly beautiful AND good.

emancipator wrote:Indeed.. and your convoluted arguements are so convincing that... no one seems to be agreeing with you

Actually the other way around. Many have changed side or at least are considering it with a more open mind. Plus a few pundits think so too and the list of them grows everyday. Flemming is another recent addition.

The question of different surfaces is an interesting one in sport. Now that soccer pitches are so excellent, it really is a level playing field for all top sides. Golfers all play on the same course, although not necessarily at the same time or in the same conditons. You don't see too many torn snooker cloths.
Other sports are different. Cricket pitches vary, although not as much as before the days of covered wickets. Bradman did not see why he should have to play on a poor pitch, but I think he missed the point. It's an outdoor game and you have to try to master all conditions.
Which brings us to tennis. It's good that there are different surfaces. But are the courts, in fact, too alike now, with the quick ones getting slower and slower and even the indoor ones sometimes not that quick ?

I can honestly say that when I started this thread I was in two minds but I am now convinced the answer is no! I also understand why tennis players have shorter careers at the top as opposed to other sports.

1 - Tennis popularity and professional players pool increased constantly since the beginning of the open era.
2 - And more than any other sport I can think of, technology and change of material and pace conds make a player's style obsolete quicker than in sports where technology plays a lesser role.

Our posts crossed SFP.

The best example is shown by Pete Sampras ups and down in his last years.

Loses terribly in WImy 2002's first round. The year the big balls are introduced allowing Hewitt to win v Nalby (almost a clay tournament final) while a couple of months later on still fast USO, Pete wins the final. This is as contrasting as his 14 slams on fast(er) surfaces and 0 at the FO.

Was it a case of Pete being old in Wimby 2002 and young in USO 2002?

The slowing up of courts have killed the modern tennis pro.

Take the Clay and Grass season. Sampras wouldn't burn himself out on the Clay season and would still be fresh for the Grass and the Hardcourt season. Now players get to the US Open or even the Australian Open still bruised from the Clay and Grass. Grass Court matches, especially in the Mens would be no longer than 3 hours and that is even after 4 sets. Now 4 setters are nearly 4 hours and beyond.

Change the conds I say. It will better serve the players longevity.

It's like a graph with two lines. The fitness/reaction time line is on the way down from 2006 and the tennis brain/technique line is probably still rising. You've got to look at the combined area under both graphs to assess Fed, and I can't believe that it's higher overall now than it was in 2006. It's not just his play vs. Nadal, who he has been working on for years, but his play vs. all the others, which has undoubtedly been less effective.

For me his peak was Aus Open 2007 and the first real cracks appeared fairly shortly afterwards with a collection of 3 losses that spring vs. Canas and Volandri which would have been almost unthinkable in the previous 3 years. Also, 2007 sort of proves my point above because it was his best year against Nadal (w3 l2) but not such a good year against the rest of the field as 2006 or 2005 had been.

barrystar wrote:It's like a graph with two lines. The fitness/reaction time line is on the way down from 2006 and the tennis brain/technique line is probably still rising. You've got to look at the combined area under both graphs to assess Fed, and I can't believe that it's higher overall now than it was in 2006. It's not just his play vs. Nadal, who he has been working on for years, but his play vs. all the others, which has undoubtedly been less effective.

For me his peak was Aus Open 2007 and the first real cracks appeared fairly shortly afterwards with a collection of 3 losses that spring vs. Canas and Volandri which would have been almost unthinkable in the previous 3 years. Also, 2007 sort of proves my point above because it was his best year against Nadal (w3 l2) but not such a good year against the rest of the field as 2006 or 2005 had been.

That period is etched in my memory, almost painfully. At the AO he was untouchable, like a God. Then when he was strolling to the consecutive wins record he had that mad loss to Canas, and followed it with another soon after, and it never seemed the same again. It was as if Achilles had been shot in the heel by an arrow. Then came the mono, and really it's been tier 2 Federer ever since, no matter how much the serve has held him up and his brain has compensated.

He became mortal in 2007, and wounded in 2008.

The fitness/reaction time line is on the way down from 2006

I actually disagree with this simple observation. If that was the case Federer woudl look rushed but if anything he looks he has even more time now than then and as said many times, his timing is better now.

Watch this clip!

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

That's 2011! Nothing suggests he is tangibly slower or has slower reaction times. Even Pete Lundgren is amazed by his speed and reactions 10 years after having coached him.