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.

If anyone wants a true statement of where Roger is in his career and what he can achieve within the 'limits' of the game from now onwards, please watch Peter Fleming's analysis after his Paris victory, because essentially he spoke the most sense I have seen and surprising didn't mention AGE as the factor that would deny him form and success.

legendkillar wrote:If anyone wants a true statement of where Roger is in his career and what he can achieve within the 'limits' of the game from now onwards, please watch Peter Fleming's analysis after his Paris victory, because essentially he spoke the most sense I have seen and surprising didn't mention AGE as the factor that would deny him form and success.

Yes you mentioned that...any wwww link?

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:If anyone wants a true statement of where Roger is in his career and what he can achieve within the 'limits' of the game from now onwards, please watch Peter Fleming's analysis after his Paris victory, because essentially he spoke the most sense I have seen and surprising didn't mention AGE as the factor that would deny him form and success.

Yes you mentioned that...any wwww link?

I can look for it, though it might ben in vein. Watch this space. TP might have seen it. I will check with her.

A very tough one to answer this.

If Federer is better than 2006 then why have his steady supply of slam wins dried up? Have others worked out a consistent game plan to beat Roger in key matches or is it just that physically he is a yard slower around the courts (due to age) which means his playing of shots are more hurried as he is getting to balls later giving him less time to set himself. Who knows? I personally think he will find it very tough to win a slam again but if he does will it be the best achievement of his career?

If the only people who were beating him were Djokovic, Nadal & Murray then I'd see an argument, but when I see him dropping matches to all sorts of top 20 bods it's pretty obvious to me that instead of the other 19 moving forward, it's he dropping back. He's >30 after all.

We've got 7 pages of debate on the details, but really step back and think about the above and Occams Razor suggests he's got a bit past his best really. Still a super player, and on a good day he can roll back the years, but those days get fewer and the less good ones get more frequent.

Yes I would agree with that bogbrush. If Djokovic's shoulder injury continues to plague him and Nadal's crisis in confidence goes on and Murray can't find the winning formula in a slam final then there is still hope for Federer.

bogbrush wrote:If the only people who were beating him were Djokovic, Nadal & Murray then I'd see an argument, but when I see him dropping matches to all sorts of top 20 bods it's pretty obvious to me that instead of the other 19 moving forward, it's he dropping back. He's >30 after all.

I answered that BB. The fact is in slams he only loses those 3..not even those 2. Tsonga is the exception this year.

Federer woudl have never won everything in 2006 had the tour been as taxing as now. Already then he was losing to Nadal and losing sets to young Djokovic!!!. It's not only Nadal and Djokovic who improved but everybody else who was relatively young at the time: Berdych, Tsonga, Soderling, etc.....Why would only Novak and Nadal improve?

And I watched again the first set of Tsonga Federer at WImby 11 yesterday where he returns almost all first serves of Tsonga, then watch the end of it and you see a bloody clear drop in mouvement.

But that's part of the factor Tenez; his level has dropped because he can't sustain performance.

I'm not saying that when fit and fresh he isn't as good at 2006. I agree, he's at least as good overall - better serve, better backhand, probably a touch slower but nothing disasterous.
I'm saying that he rarely operates fit and fresh now - he can fade within matches, he picks up injuries regularly and fails to recover from long matches. Those are symptoms of age - not just biological, but miles on the tour clock.

Hence he is not as good as he used to be.

bogbrush wrote:If the only people who were beating him were Djokovic, Nadal & Murray then I'd see an argument, but when I see him dropping matches to all sorts of top 20 bods it's pretty obvious to me that instead of the other 19 moving forward, it's he dropping back. He's >30 after all.

...................................................................................................................

bogbrush We all acknowledge that Federer is losing to guys that most probably wouldn't have troubled him in his pomp, and it would be irrational to imagine that age is not a key factor. So I'm definitely with you on that.

But, but ....... I wonder .....just how much can we safely conclude from such losses ?

Is "dropping matches to all sorts of top 20 bods" in itself definitive evidence of a major fall in Federer's quality ? ; or does it simply reflect the fact that - on any given day - a lower-ranked player can perform well enough to take out a top guy? In the world of pro tennis it was ever thus, was it not ?

Interesting to compare the records of all the Big Four in this regard. I included all matches (except retirements) over the whole of this year and 2010. And I've set the bar high by including all losses to anyone ranked below five. Here goes ....

LOSSES SUFFERED TO NON TOP-FIVE PLAYERS DURING 2011 & 2010 (combined)

Djokovic 12

Nadal 13

Murray 19

Federer 14

I stand by comments in my earlier post wrt age. Nobody can defeat Father Time. But based on the above comparison with his younger peers we can say that Fed is making a damn good stab at it

bogbrush wrote:But that's part of the factor Tenez; his level has dropped because he can't sustain performance.

Good. SO if the sustaining performance is the main issue of disagreement then the question is:

Is that due to age or the fact that every single match he plays nowadays is more taxing than in 2006? Look at the effect those same draws have on young Djoko and Nadal. More importantly knowing that the top players are so much tougher to beat, are his losses to lower ranked players in smaller tournaments just a way to conserve energy for the slams knowing he will need more energy in the later stages of slams? Isn't he one of the few players who can play all year around though (Nadal and Djoko seem to struggle already)?

Today, the tour is physically much tougher, it's not only Nadal and Djoko that became fitter, everybody else did in the process, just compare the size of Berdych legs now with 2006!.

Tenez wrote:Today, the tour is physically much tougher

It may be for someone who is just starting out, but not for Federer.

2006 W/L is 92:5
2011 W/L is 59:12

A difference of 26 matches. The schedule that Federer plays now is much lighter than 2006.

He also takes it easy due his family travelling with him.

Edit: It is a testament to his fitness that the old man can still play 70+ matches.

PS. Currently, matches are Djokovic 73(69-4). Nadal 79(66-13), Murray 68(56-12). Also the complaint that season is too long, is a bit of a red herring for the Top 4, at least.

I took a look at Federer's stats on the ATP website comparing 2006 to 2011. They are very close actually, and reflect quite well I think the changes in Federer's game. Here are some of the interesting stats:

- Ace count. Federer hit 656 aces in 2006 compared to 471 (so far) in 2011. Of course, he played more service games in 2006, so when this is accounted for the number in 2011 rises to roughly 685. This indicates that Federer probably hits more aces nowadays.

- Double faults. This went the opposite way to aces. Federer hit 118 double faults in 2006 compared to 94 in 2011. Accounting for the number of games again gives a scaled up figure of 136 double faults.

Generally, the serve stats are extremely close. He faced more break points in 2006 than 2011, even after scaling up the 2011 number, but was better at saving them (70% save rate in 2006 compared to 65% in 2011).

The returning stats favour the 2006 version in every way, even though all the scores are close.

- In 2006 Federer won 35% of points on his opponents first serve compared to 33% in 2011. The numbers are 54% and 52% on his opponents second serve.

- The 2006 version created far more break point opportunities. 875 compared to 805 (after scaling up the 2011 stats).

- 43% break points converted in 2006 compared to 41% in 2011. 32% return games in 2006 won compared to 28% in 2011. 42% return points won in 2006 compared to 40% nowadays.

So, my overall take on this is:

A) Federer's serving has pretty much stayed even. He hits more aces nowadays, but also more double faults.

B) Federer was better on the big points back in 2006. He saved more break points on his own serve and won more of the ones he created on his opponents.

C) His returning was better in 2006.

Chazfazzer wrote:
So, my overall take on this is:

A) Federer's serving has pretty much stayed even. He hits more aces nowadays, but also more double faults.

B) Federer was better on the big points back in 2006. He saved more break points on his own serve and won more of the ones he created on his opponents.

C) His returning was better in 2006.

Fantastic research, Chazzfazzer. :hatoff:

Tenez may perhaps object to the the 'scaling' aspect.

Well Federer played 844 service games in 2011 compared to 1229 in 2006, so to 'scale up' the 2011 number I simply multiplied it by (1229/844). Seemed the only logical way to get a fair comparison. The same goes with the returning games, although obviously with different numbers. If Tenez objects, well so be it, but I thought this was a pretty unbiased and objective look at the data.

Chazfazzer wrote:
A) Federer's serving has pretty much stayed even. He hits more aces nowadays, but also more double faults.

B) Federer was better on the big points back in 2006. He saved more break points on his own serve and won more of the ones he created on his opponents.

C) His returning was better in 2006.

My view on these stats:
a. not much to say about the serve. It was a weapon and it still is.
b. Crucial! I definitely think he's more nervous these days. Experience is overrated!
c. I believe the return itself has improved, but this stat shows he doesn't win as much rallies like he used to. This is basically due to his riskier game plan (from aggressive to ultra aggressive) in order to protect his older body.

I don't need to object. Those stats are based against 2006 players v 2011 players.

That's all I am saying.

On the previous page LF listed all the 2006 matches Fed played. I also hilighted some of those matches. I invite people to check that long list and compare the opposition to now. You might see that many results of then woudl have been seriously questioned had they happened now, like losing sets to Bagdhatis in slam (desptite Bagdhatis being younger then) or getting to MPs versus Rochus, losing already sets to young Djokovic, etc, etc...Honestly have a look. Fed won many matches then, but it wasn;t as straight forward as our memory makes it look. .

You might noticed that many people of that time slipped by to oblivion while the younger players became stronger....like one woudl expect in any sport.

In that respect all those stats have got to be looked at with some perspective in mind.

I am quite convinced that Federer would not have plyed 100matches in 06, had the opposition been as tough as today. Again, Djoko and Rafa simply can't and they are still pretty young.

gallery play wrote:c. I believe the return itself has improved, but this stat shows he doesn't win as much rallies like he used to. This is basically due to his riskier game plan (from aggressive to ultra aggressive) in order to protect his older body.

Yes, except that he would have had to protect it then too had he played against today's player. Federer realised that his sharpness was (and always had been) his main strength, not rallying v Djoko and Rafa. In 2006 there was one Hewitt and one Nadal...now they all are Hewiitts with weapons from first round onwards.

Tenez wrote:

...................................................................................................................................

I am quite convinced that Federer would not have plyed 100matches in 06, had the opposition been as tough as today. Again, Djoko and Rafa simply can't and they are still pretty young.

Tenez, nobody could (sensibly) deny that the tour is more demanding & exhausting than it ever was in the past, but I'm not so sure about your point re Federer's alleged inability to play 100 + matches in '06 had the opposition in '06 been "as tough as today"

Over the years, the much younger Novak and Rafa have been involved in far more retirements and injury lay-offs than Federer. Maybe his ability to look after himself better than them (partly down to his efficient playing style, but also a fair amount of good fortune) is why he's comfortably held down a top five place for so long and still making Slam Finals and SF's .......

Tenez wrote:I don't need to object. Those stats are based against 2006 players v 2011 players.

That's all I am saying.

On the previous page LF listed all the 2006 matches Fed played. I also hilighted some of those matches. I invite people to check that long list and compare the opposition to now. You might see that many results of then woudl have been seriously questioned had they happened now, like losing sets to Bagdhatis in slam (desptite Bagdhatis being younger then) or getting to MPs versus Rochus, losing already sets to young Djokovic, etc, etc...Honestly have a look. Fed won many matches then, but it wasn;t as straight forward as our memory makes it look. .

You might noticed that many people of that time slipped by to oblivion while the younger players became stronger....like one woudl expect in any sport.

In that respect all those stats have got to be looked at with some perspective in mind.

I am quite convinced that Federer would not have plyed 100matches in 06, had the opposition been as tough as today. Again, Djoko and Rafa simply can't and they are still pretty young.

You mean like Nole did at Wimbledon this year? Against knackered Marcos?

That's the same kind of lazy stuff as the weak era exponents come up with. Baggy was actually a very dangerous opponent in that event and remains a good player despite injury taking its toll. Good enough to seriously push Djokovic in the middle of his peak year, so remember how good he was in 2007.

Some chosen 2006 matches...


RR Andy Roddick (USA) 5 W 4-6, 7-6(8), 6-4 Stats

R32 Tomas Zib (CZE) 151 W 6-1, 6-2 Stats (remember him anyone?)
Q David Ferrer (ESP) 15 W 6-3, 7-6(14) Stats - Has a score been as close v Ferrer?
S Paradorn Srichaphan (THA) 54 W 6-4, 3-6, 7-6(5) Stats

ATP Masters Series Madrid, Spain; 16.10.2006; SU; Indoor: Hard; Draw: 48
Round Opponent Ranking Score

R16 Robin Soderling (SWE) 29 W 7-6(5), 7-6(8) Stats
Q Robby Ginepri (USA) 47 W 6-3, 7-6(4) Stats

R32 Viktor Troicki (SRB) 276 W 7-6(2), 7-6(3) Stats
Q Takao Suzuki (JPN) 1,078 W 4-6, 7-5, 7-6(3) Stats!!!


R128 Jimmy Wang (TPE) 109 W 6-4, 6-1, 6-0 Stats
Q James Blake (USA) 7 W 7-6(7), 6-0, 6-7(9), 6-4 Stats
W Andy Roddick (USA) 10 W 6-2, 4-6, 7-5, 6-1 Stats


R16 Dmitry Tursunov (RUS) 27 W 6-3, 5-7, 6-0 Stats
Q Xavier Malisse (BEL) 41 W 7-6(4), 6-7(5), 6-3 Stats
S Fernando Gonzalez (CHI) 16 W 6-1, 5-7, 6-3 Stats
W Richard Gasquet (FRA) 51 W 2-6, 6-3, 6-2 Stats

Wimbledon, England; 26.06.2006; GS; Outdoor: Grass; Draw: 128
Round Opponent Ranking Score

W Rafael Nadal (ESP) 2 W 6-0, 7-6(5), 6-7(2), 6-3 Stats, some signs of nerves already on grass...


R32 Rohan Bopanna (IND) 267 W 7-6(4), 6-2 Stats
R16 Richard Gasquet (FRA) 51 W 7-6(7), 6-7(7), 6-4 Stats
Q Olivier Rochus (BEL) 29 W 6-7(2), 7-6(9), 7-6(5) Stats - The dangerous O Rochus
S Tommy Haas (GER) 26 W 6-4, 6-7(4), 6-3 Stats
W Tomas Berdych (CZE) 15 W 6-0, 6-7(4), 6-2 Stats continued troubles v young Berdych

R128 Diego Hartfield (ARG) 157 W 7-5, 7-6(2), 6-2 Stats
R32 Nicolas Massu (CHI) 35 W 6-1, 6-2, 6-7(4), 7-5 Stats - losing a set to Massu????WOudl he be forgiven for that today?
S David Nalbandian (ARG) 3 W 3-6, 6-4, 5-2 RET Stats
F Rafael Nadal (ESP) 2 L 6-1, 1-6, 4-6, 6-7(4) Stats


ATP Masters Series Rome, Italy; 08.05.2006; SU; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 64
Round Opponent Ranking Score

Q Nicolas Almagro (ESP) 54 W 6-3, 6-7(2), 7-5 Stats - losing a set to young Almagro?
S David Nalbandian (ARG) 3 W 6-3, 3-6, 7-6(5) Stats
F Rafael Nadal (ESP) 2 L 7-6(0), 6-7(5), 4-6, 6-2, 6-7(5) Stats

ATP Masters Series Monte Carlo, Monaco; 17.04.2006; SU; Outdoor: Clay;

R64 Novak Djokovic (SRB) 67 W 6-3, 2-6, 6-3 Stats (losoing a set v 19yo Djoko!!!! )
Rafael Nadal (ESP) 2 L 2-6, 7-6(2), 3-6, 6-7(5) Stats !!!!!!!!!


R64 Arnaud Clement (FRA) 53 W 6-2, 6-7(4), 6-0 Stats - losing a set to Arnaud? While injured in Wimby 10, he did not lose a set v him

W Ivan Ljubicic (CRO) 6 W 7-6(5), 7-6(4), 7-6(6) Stats !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


R64 Nicolas Massu (CHI) 47 W 6-3, 7-6(4) Stats
R32 Olivier Rochus (BEL) 32 W 3-6, 6-2, 7-5 Stats Losing a set to O Rochus?!!!
R16 Richard Gasquet (FRA) 18 W 6-3, 6-4 Stats DIsmissing an improved Gasquet in Paris a few days ago with more ease than in 2006

R32 Stanislas Wawrinka (SUI) 57 W 7-6(3), 6-3 Stats - Tough match v young Wawrinka
R16 Mohammad Ghareeb (KUW) 488 W 7-6(5), 6-4 Stats
Q Robin Vik (CZE) 75 W 6-3, 6-2 Stats
F Rafael Nadal (ESP) 2 L 6-2, 4-6, 4-6 Stats

Australian Open, Australia; 16.01.2006; GS; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 128
Round Opponent Ranking Score

R16 Tommy Haas (GER) 41 W 6-4, 6-0, 3-6, 4-6, 6-2 Stats
Q Nikolay Davydenko (RUS) 5 W 6-4, 3-6, 7-6(7), 7-6(5) Stats
S Nicolas Kiefer (GER) 25 W 6-3, 5-7, 6-0, 6-2 Stats
W Marcos Baghdatis (CYP) 54 W 5-7, 7-5, 6-0, 6-2 Stats


R16 Fabrice Santoro (FRA) 58 W 7-6(2), 7-6(5) Stats !!!
W Gael Monfils (FRA) 30 W 6-3, 7-6(5) Stats !!! Monfils was 20!

.

Gasquet is not improving, unless you count recovering from not playing "improving".

And shall we focus on 2011 Federers win over Juan Monaco, which contained some of the most rubbish tennis I've ever seen from him?

Tenez, you say that you are keeping an open mind about this, yet you simply wave away an analysis of the statistics with a statement of 'that was against 2006 players'.

I am still dubious as to the real strength of this 'golden era'. Was Tsonga's performance in the final of Paris really that much better than, say, that of Marat Safin when he played well? I've seen a lot of pretty mediocre tennis this year - Djokovic rolling serves in at barely 110mph, missing shots all over the place, and still beating Troicki in Paris springs to mind as a recent example. How is David Ferrer still up at number 5, for instance, when he was ranked 14 in 2006? I hate your dismissal of that era as if it contained a field of complete no-hopers who would get double-bagelled by a present day Djokovic.

That's the same kind of lazy stuff as the weak era exponents come up with. Baggy was actually a very dangerous opponent in that event and remains a good player despite injury taking its toll. Good enough to seriously push Djokovic in the middle of his peak year, so remember how good he was in 2007.

He also destroyed Murray in one match this year, and took a set off him in another. Yep, Baghdatis is a terrible player.

bogbrush wrote:

And shall we focus on 2011 Federers win over Juan Monaco, which contained some of the most rubbish tennis I've ever seen from him?

Federer or Monaco?

Chazfazzer wrote:Tenez, you say that you are keeping an open mind about this, yet you simply wave away an analysis of the statistics with a statement of 'that was against 2006 players'.

I am still dubious as to the real strength of this 'golden era'. Was Tsonga's performance in the final of Paris really that much better than, say, that of Marat Safin when he played well? I've seen a lot of pretty mediocre tennis this year - Djokovic rolling serves in at barely 110mph, missing shots all over the place, and still beating Troicki in Paris springs to mind as a recent example. How is David Ferrer still up at number 5, for instance, when he was ranked 14 in 2006? I hate your dismissal of that era as if it contained a field of complete no-hopers who would get double-bagelled by a present day Djokovic.

I don;t think today is a golden era at all! I am just saying that talent is now much less of a factor in deciding a match than it was in 2006 and that physique is much more. But you have that in all sports almost. That I will not change my mind upon. Effort is not that easy to measure with the naked eye but it still extremely obvious that all players are pushing the extra step, getting the extra power in the ball, retrieving the ball that was not retrievable in 2006. And that makes all matches for Federer and everybody else..tougher now than then.

This is why unlike the 2003-2007 period, nowadays all slams are simply won by the 2 fittest players..and that is why the 3rd fittest has reached semi or better at least in his last 4 slams. That's the difference and it explains why Federer struggles dominating like he used to. He was also stopped physically in 2006 by a young Nadal, wasn't he?

laverfan wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

And shall we focus on 2011 Federers win over Juan Monaco, which contained some of the most rubbish tennis I've ever seen from him?

Federer or Monaco?

Federer, though I admit it was hard to tell the difference.

lags72 wrote:Interesting to compare the records of all the Big Four in this regard. I included all matches (except retirements) over the whole of this year and 2010. And I've set the bar high by including all losses to anyone ranked below five. Here goes ....

LOSSES SUFFERED TO NON TOP-FIVE PLAYERS DURING 2011 & 2010 (combined)

Djokovic 12

Nadal 13

Murray 19

Federer 14

I stand by comments in my earlier post wrt age. Nobody can defeat Father Time. But based on the above comparison with his younger peers we can say that Fed is making a damn good stab at it

Interesting. If we consider that Djoko improved most but Nadal and Murray also improved from 2006 their H2H is as follow regarding 2010 and 2011:

Federer v Nadal 1/4
Federer v Djoko 5/5 (could have been 7/3 Fed had he converted a couple of BPs)
Djoko v Nadal 6/2
Djoko v Murray 2/1
Nadal v Murray 6/3

Not sure what to draw on this bar Federer still holds his own versus improved players.

Tenez wrote:

lags72 wrote:Interesting to compare the records of all the Big Four in this regard. I included all matches (except retirements) over the whole of this year and 2010. And I've set the bar high by including all losses to anyone ranked below five. Here goes ....

LOSSES SUFFERED TO NON TOP-FIVE PLAYERS DURING 2011 & 2010 (combined)

Djokovic 12

Nadal 13

Murray 19

Federer 14

I stand by comments in my earlier post wrt age. Nobody can defeat Father Time. But based on the above comparison with his younger peers we can say that Fed is making a damn good stab at it

Interesting. If we consider that Djoko improved most but Nadal and Murray also improved from 2006 their H2H is as follow regarding 2010 and 2011:

Federer v Nadal 1/4
Federer v Djoko 5/5 (could have been 7/3 Fed had he converted a couple of BPs)
Djoko v Nadal 6/2
Djoko v Murray 2/1
Nadal v Murray 6/3

Not sure what to draw on this bar Federer still holds his own versus improved players.

He does, he's an exceptional player. In 2006 he wasn't 'holding his own', he was sweeping all before him (except for Nadal in 4 matches and Murray in 1). This year he has lost matches that he would not have lost in his heyday. From 2004-2006 he lost 6+4+5 matches, 15 in all, and won 74 + 81 + 92 = 247. This year he has lost 12 and won 59.

He can still hit the heights, at Paris he managed it for pretty much an entire tournament, but we can say what we like about his opponents, Djokovic has obviously improved, Nadal probably, Murray certainly but you can't say, standing back and taking into account the fact that he's now 30 that he's better than he was in 2006, it just does not make sense, it really does not.

barrystar wrote:He can still hit the heights, at Paris he managed it for pretty much an entire tournament, but we can say what we like about his opponents, Djokovic has obviously improved, Nadal probably, Murray certainly but you can't say, standing back and taking into account the fact that he's now 30 that he's better than he was in 2006, it just does not make sense, it really does not.

Strange cause it makes sense to quite a few pundits.

Pete said he played his best tennis at 31.
Wilander says Fed plays his best tennis.
Agassi won most his slams at 30+
Federer's just said he is fitter now than then.
Flemming says so too.

But more importantly, it's obvious his game is better now...when he puts his mind into it.

So I am surprised with your "it does not make sense".

I have thought for 20 years that a tennis player's peak was 26, 27. I was wrong!..cause I was not taking into consideration why champions did not look as good after 27. And the reason is simple, cause the game moves on in many aspects. And to me ignoring this simple fact...doesn't make sense!

tevez when i talked about the views of tennis pundits you dismissed it as it didnt support your argument despite many of them backing this up. And agassi won only 2 of his 8 slams at the age of 30 plus, one in '01 and another in'03, both at the aussie open. Can you provide proof that federer said he is fitter now?

LuvSports! wrote:tevez when i talked about the views of tennis pundits you dismissed it as it didnt support your argument despite many of them backing this up. And agassi won only 2 of his 8 slams at the age of 30 plus, one in '01 and another in'03, both at the aussie open. Can you provide proof that federer said he is fitter now?

Agassi won 5 at 29+ and 3 won before 29!

The ref to Federer's comment is a couple of pages ago.

I am not using "pundits" to support my views. My points are first and foremost based on what I see. I would not have started this thread had I not seen Federer play better (more solid and agressive) now than in 2006. I said exactly that despite seeing Federer losing to Soderling and Delpo at the FO and USO 09 respectively.

I am using the "pundits" views to counter Barry's "it doesn't make sense" comment.

Round in circles it goes...

In sports people and players peak at different ages I think that much is certain and in tennis that is also the case. I'd say Federer peaked in 2006/2007 at the age of 25/26. Rafael Nadal peaked a little earlier I'd say around 2010 at the age of 24. Other players in the past have peaked at different ages and this will always be the case. It is not impossible for Federer to win another slam title but it would need everything to fall into place and other contenders to have a dip in form in my opinion.

Tenez - it's disappointing to see you play fast & loose with the facts, I don't think it does you any favours in making your case.

As Luvsports correctly points out, Agassi won two Slams in his thirties - both AO's (and it so happens that he managed his 2003 triumph without having to face anyone ranked higher than 16 ....).

So .......very different from your throwaway line of "Agassi won most of his Slams at 30+"

Agassi was something of a fitness freak and we may not see his like again.

As for Sampras : Did he really claim that he played his "best tennis" at 31 ...?? I'd love to see an exact quote. If true it would be strange indeed, considering that in his 30th and 31st years he was being beaten up week after week - often in very early rounds - by a whole host of guys ranked below 50, and some even below 100. Everything then came right for him of course at his last USO in 2002 (when ironically it was Agassi he beat in the final). But with those previous bad losses still fresh in his mind he did the right thing, called it a day and went out on a high.

I have huge respect for the legend that is Pete Sampras but all the evidence is that age caught up with him as it does with all players. And that very last Slam triumph, just a few weeks past his 31st birthday, was (like Agassi's wins) highly unusual. Over a span of more than 40 years, going back as far as 1968, only 18 times has a Slam been won by a player aged 30 + ..... so it's hardly a normal occurrence, and looking less likely than ever in today's high-powered game.

If Federer were to start losing regularly to lowly journeymen - as Pete did at Fed's age now - I somehow doubt we would hear him say like Pete (allegedly ) I think I'm playing my best tennis . In fact I doubt he'd even stick around.

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."

Who should I believe? Lags and CC or Pete Sampras? I wonder.

Pete is saying what I have been saying: the rest of the field progress.

If you look at sports which measure performance against the clock and not directly v opposition, we have :

Linford Christie best 100m time at 33
Carl lewis best 100m time at 30 and longest jump at 30.
Frankie Frederick best 100m and 200m perf at 29
D Mitchell best 100m perf at 30
Michael Johnson 3 best 200m at 29 and best 400m at 32

no one would tell those guys they lost a step at 30, would we?

Okay, thanks for providing the quote + link.

I'm surprised by his "ten times the player as I got older" bit, but those are his words so fair enough. Interesting that he cites as evidence one specific match, the USO '02. I myself had said (even before seeing the quote) that everything came right for him then, but many of his results earlier that year (and the year before) were dismal, with zero indication that he was about to pull off that 14th Slam. Hence my genuine surprise (puzzlement even) at his words. Not that my views count vs Pete's !!

On the issue of consistency, Pete's reflections are essentially not a million miles away from the thrust of many of the thread's contributions : ie that a player in his thirties will inevitably have fewer 'glory' days - over the course of a full season - than he was used to having in his mid-twenties.

Who can say that Federer won't - like Pete - somehow manage a last swansong on one of the big stages ? Personally I think the odds are against it ....... but we shall see

Tenez wrote:But more importantly, it's obvious his game is better now...when he puts his mind into it.

The losses in 2011 alone show the lack of mental fortitude. Tsonga W 2011 and USO 2011 are standout examples.

The only comparable losses are Nalbandian @TMC 2005 and Hewitt @DC 2003. The W 2008 loss is more down to a bad 2008 for him.

You can perhaps debate that he has better technique now, or, better arsenal of shots now, which is not the same as game because it includes all aspects to complete a player, not just technique.

If technique and strokes were the only measure, then Dimitrov and Wawrinka, alike would have a good 'game'.

Federer doesnt have stamina these days to play 5 setters, his game falls apart with every set which is quite the opposite of his prime days. Ao2007 Gonzo powered his way to the finals [including a demolition of Nadal in 4th or QF] and he did threw the kitchen sink at Fed, but that Fed just cannot lose , now half that level of Gonzo could beat current Fed out on most days.

Some parts of Federer game has improved, but overall game has fallen down so massively, this Fed is 30-40% of prime Fed, I give this high percentage coz he still proved his game on FO semi against the invincible man.

Just because Pete Sampras or whoever else says they peaked at 31 doesn't mean Federer will and I say he won't as his peak came when he was 25/26 which just backs up what I was saying that sportsmen peak at different ages. For all those sportsmen you put down as 'late peakers' there are just as many early peakers. Look at Stephen Hendry. He was at his prime in his late teens/early 20's just like Tiger Woods was at his most potent in his early to mid-20's and into his thirties now the majors have dried up, Rory McIlroy may well be at his peak now in his early 20's and Ronaldo was at his prime in his early 20's and form dipped in his late 20's early 30's.

Physical prowess (fitness and speed) are part of a players make-up but not everything. However, is it coincedence that this year Federer lost his first match at Wimbledon from a 2-0 lead against Tsonga and then lost similarly against Djokovic in the US Open semi and would also explain how he is now more often than not hitting the brick wall at the semi-final stage of slams whereas he was in a position physically perhaps to go and win these matches in the past. I mean is it really coincedence that these traits have crept in as the years have rolled on?

invisiblecoolers wrote:Federer doesnt have stamina these days to play 5 setters, his game falls apart with every set which is quite the opposite of his prime days.

I already fell apart in 2006 when he had to play Nadal. Besides you can say that he had the stamina to beat Djoko in 5 sets at the USO. Ok he did not down to a lucky return but he last longer than Nadal who played a tired Djoko.

You simply cannot compare stamina 5 years apart when the game has gone so physical in the meantime.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Just because Pete Sampras or whoever else says they peaked at 31 doesn't mean Federer will and I say he won't as his peak came when he was 25/26 which just backs up what I was saying that sportsmen peak at different ages. For all those sportsmen you put down as 'late peakers' there are just as many early peakers. Look at Stephen Hendry. He was at his prime in his late teens/early 20's just like Tiger Woods was at his most potent in his early to mid-20's and into his thirties now the majors have dried up, Rory McIlroy may well be at his peak now in his early 20's and Ronaldo was at his prime in his early 20's and form dipped in his late 20's early 30's.

For you "peak" is about how many tournaments one wins v a variable opposition. There is a big flaw in this reasoning but you don't want to see it. fine. The flaw is actually most obvious when considering snooker and Golf where the opposition is so variable.

laverfan wrote:You can perhaps debate that he has better technique now, or, better arsenal of shots now, which is not the same as game because it includes all aspects to complete a player, not just technique.

Like what? his tap tancing skills?

Tenez wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Just because Pete Sampras or whoever else says they peaked at 31 doesn't mean Federer will and I say he won't as his peak came when he was 25/26 which just backs up what I was saying that sportsmen peak at different ages. For all those sportsmen you put down as 'late peakers' there are just as many early peakers. Look at Stephen Hendry. He was at his prime in his late teens/early 20's just like Tiger Woods was at his most potent in his early to mid-20's and into his thirties now the majors have dried up, Rory McIlroy may well be at his peak now in his early 20's and Ronaldo was at his prime in his early 20's and form dipped in his late 20's early 30's.

For you "peak" is about how many tournaments one wins v a variable opposition. There is a big flaw in this reasoning but you don't want to see it. fine. The flaw is actually most obvious when considering snooker and Golf where the opposition is so variable.

There are variable opposition in tennis as well. We now have a new range of players such as Raonic, Ebdon, Tomic etc on the scene that weren't around in 2006 and that doesn't alter that sportsmen peak at different ages. Peaks will always be judged on when that person was most successful and for Federer that was 2006. Now I honestly cannot possibly see how Federer can be peaking now in a year where he has won no slams and lost two key matches when he has had a two set lead (unheard of when Fed was in his prime). Like I said he is now in a position where another slam win is rather out of his hands since he has (in my opinion) past his peak and should others not be at their best he will however been in a good position to mop up.

CaledonianCraig wrote: Like I said he is now in a position where another slam win is rather out of his hands since he has (in my opinion) past his peak and should others not be at their best he will however been in a good position to mop up.

What has that got to do with whether his game now is better or worse than 2006?

Glad you admit that his tennis opposition is also a variable.

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:You can perhaps debate that he has better technique now, or, better arsenal of shots now, which is not the same as game because it includes all aspects to complete a player, not just technique.

Like what? his tap tancing skills?

I think lf could be referring to the fact that his movement is a little slower, his reflexes too. This shows most on the return of serve. Federer in 06 was one of the very best returners in the game, possibly THE best. now he ranks outside the top 10 IMO.

Oddly, Sampras' assessment of his 2002 USO victory in his autobiography is somewhat different from the link above (which isn't working, but I've seen it before).
In the book he writes that his tennis in the 2002 USO final was nearly at the same level as 1999 Wimbledon final.
Who do I believe, Pete Sampras, or, er...Pete Sampras.

Here's a thought - maybe Fed was better in 2006, but never really had the chance to play to his full potential because he was never pushed to it. Maybe we can see what he's capable of at the age of 30, because he's forced to show it, but we never saw what he was capable of 5 years ago because he may have won everything playing at less than his potential best.

Tenez wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote: Like I said he is now in a position where another slam win is rather out of his hands since he has (in my opinion) past his peak and should others not be at their best he will however been in a good position to mop up.

What has that got to do with whether his game now is better or worse than 2006?

Glad you admit that his tennis opposition is also a variable.

His game isn't better in my opinion as there are flaws that I never saw all those years ago but of course that is my opinion. I never saw him blowing leads in key slam matches in 2006 like he has this year against players who he used to always have the upper hand on in earlier years.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:You can perhaps debate that he has better technique now, or, better arsenal of shots now, which is not the same as game because it includes all aspects to complete a player, not just technique.

Like what? his tap tancing skills?

I think lf could be referring to the fact that his movement is a little slower, his reflexes too. This shows most on the return of serve. Federer in 06 was one of the very best returners in the game, possibly THE best. now he ranks outside the top 10 IMO.

That's what those who run out of arguments come up with cause it's almost impossible to prove that he has slower mouvement and reflexes. Howver I have shown above that many top athletes have their best performance at 29 or higher when it can be clocked.

2011 Hard Court Return Games Won
Complete List Games Won Total Games % Matches
1. Novak Djokovic 219 510 43 48
2. Andy Murray 168 449 37 42
3. Rafael Nadal 151 455 33 41
4. Roger Federer 157 519 30 48
5. Nikolay Davydenko 110 370 30 34

Not 10th, 4th...but hey who is in front? only the new generation...again. And they are not better/quicker than him. They simply have a better, more modern technique helped by today's string technology AND mouvement. They stand further back than Federer and use their muscles to compensate. That's all.

Is that the new generation that are still 5 years away from reaching their peak level?

JuliusHMarx wrote:Is that the new generation that are still 5 years away from reaching their peak level?

Are you talking about Nadal, Djoko and Murray or Raonic, Harrison, Dolgo and Dimitrov....cause once again, the latters will affect the success of the formers.