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 and as I have shown many also were at their best earlier (and yes there were variables in opponents in snooker and golf. Maybe not in physicality but definitely in talent and style-wise). I just cannot accept that a Federer now blowing two set leads in key slam matches is at the same level (be it fitness or peak levels) as he was when dominant against invariably the same players at the top of the game around 2006.

bit of cherry-picking there with limiting yourself to Federer's best surface, ie hard-court. He ranks outside the top 50 on clay, and outside the top 10 on all surfaces combined, hence my point. However to still be the fourth best returner on hard-court is actually impressive, I didn't expect that at all. I'd still say he's less consistent than he was in 06 though, he loses far more matches now to players he would have beaten back then, and also loses matches which he goes ahead in, which was incredibly rare in 06.

No I just used the first data which was HC and most relevant cause grass and clay have not got enough valid data.

oh come on! if that were the case there's no way he could slip to 12th from 4th by only taking in surfaces with not enough valid data. Clay has plenty of data, and as such is valid. Grass probably not I agree (Federer only played one grass court tournament this year). Had I been able to, I'd have selected "clay and hard" but that doesn't seem possible.

Tenez wrote:

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.

I'm just being a bit tongue-in-cheek with my logic, really. Fed is behind 3 players who are 24 - 25 years old, and as such those 3 players are ahead of Fed despite being 5 years away from playing their best tennis. If they're ahead of him now, just imagine if they were the same age as Fed - they'd be way ahead of him!

Mad for Chelsea wrote:oh come on! if that were the case there's no way he could slip to 12th from 4th by only taking in surfaces with not enough valid data. Clay has plenty of data, and as such is valid. Grass probably not I agree (Federer only played one grass court tournament this year). Had I been able to, I'd have selected "clay and hard" but that doesn't seem possible.

He does not play clay with the same intensity than the others. We know that. He is saving himself for 2 TMS (max) and the FO.

Tenez, you quote Sampras as saying this:

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.

First of all he's not the best judge - there must be too much emotion and subjectivity in his judgment of such an extraordinary match, it's only natural to 'big it up', and I wonder if other observers have said the same thing. Also, he was playing his habitual US Open bunny, fellow 30+ yr-old Agassi who he beat in 1990, 1995, and 2001 at the US Open when the faster conditions always favoured him - he can hardly have been better in 2002 than he was in 2000 and 2001 when he was wiped by tougher opponents in the final.

But even taking Sampras at face value he puts his finger on the nub of it. I am quite prepared to accept that when everything goes right for Federer and, as someone else put it on this thread, he is able to wind the clock back for an afternoon or part of it, he plays possibly better than in 2006, at least in patches of a match. That is because he has had 5 years of experience learning to play ever-improving opponents which the likes of Federer don't waste (or if they do they are down at No. 75). Maybe his play at times during his RG win against Djoko this year was the best he's ever played (or had to play - your point). But do you call a player whose peaks are more rare albiet briefly higher but whose troughs are lower and more frequent better than he was when he was so consistently playing at a level not much below his current peaks and sweeping all before him? I don't, or at least not without qualifying the comment carefully by reference to his current inconsistency. I still say peak Federer was January 2007.

You refer to the 'height of the bar' which is continually rising - that's always been the case - every player who can stay at the top must run to stand still to an extent. Federer has not stayed at the top, but near the top (that's quite a difference). I accept that on his day he remains able to beat everyone else on the men's tour - beating Djoko now must be more difficult than beating most of his opponents in 2006 - and he would undoubtedly be better than he was without the need for any qualification if he did that regularly; but he can't, and instead he's started losing more regularly to more players in more situations that would not have happened to the Aus Open 2007 Federer.

The fact remains in any case that his two catastrophes (by his standards) this season came at Wimbledon (a surface he used to own) where he lost a match against Tsonga after leading 2-0 and similarly at the US Open (hard court) when he had match points. Why is that the case if he is better now than in 2006?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Tenez wrote:

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.

I'm just being a bit tongue-in-cheek with my logic, really. Fed is behind 3 players who are 24 - 25 years old, and as such those 3 players are ahead of Fed despite being 5 years away from playing their best tennis. If they're ahead of him now, just imagine if they were the same age as Fed - they'd be way ahead of him!

I certainly understand this logic and that is what hurts a few Fed fans here. But regardless, peak Fededer, was also beaten by far-from-peak Nadal and already losing set v very young Djoko. So it just shows that only an improved Federer can keep in touch with those guys.

What we are seeing today is at small scale what we see when we compare the game of the 70s with Todays' game. The game has moved so much because teh newer generation always brings something new and more competitive. Sampras 2001=Federer 2001..more or less but Federer now is simply many levels up. And that will happen to all tennis players. Federer is the one that is resisting best in my view. Agassi was one too but Agassi was not exposed as as much physical improvements from the tour as Federer has.

CaledonianCraig wrote:The fact remains in any case that his two catastrophes (by his standards) this season came at Wimbledon (a surface he used to own) where he lost a match against Tsonga after leading 2-0 and similarly at the US Open (hard court) when he had match points. Why is that the case if he is better now than in 2006?

Forget the match points he shouldn't have lost from being 2 sets up, it would have been a straight sets victory if that was a few years ago.

As already stated, in Wilander's assessment, Fed is better now than before, but Nadal and Djoko are better.
He also says Nadal's level of tennis last year was the highest level ever played. And that Fed is the best player ever - becuase of the 16 slams.

Tenez, if you are really interested in knowing our views, take a poll and I am sure most will click on ‘strongly disagree’. And please don’t use pundits’ views – for every one that you can find, I can find ten others reminiscing about ‘those glorious days’

To my mind, his best days are few and far between and there are lots of bad days in between. I have held my head in shame (exaggerating ofocurse) on his display against Monaco in Paris, against Nadal in IW, against Novak in Dubai, nervous showing in that 3rd set against Simon in AO, inability to do anything against Berdych pounding his second serves in Cinci etc etc. Not only does he look very tired at times, clearly his ability to grind out a win has come down drastically – this year, I can only remember him winning once playing inferior to the other guy across the net which was against Lopez when he needed huge luck to have Lopez mis-hitting and going wide on his smash leading 5-2 in the final set tie-break.

To me, his best displays this year have been against Novak in FO, Stan and Mannarino in Wimby, Monaco in USO (superlative indeed) and against Berdych in Paris but do we even need to count such awesome displays from him in 2005-06?

While I do think that his best days now are comparable or only slightly worse than his best days of yore, his average is probably 10%* worse and his rubbish is 50%* crappy than his worst of 2005-06. Which means that his average play is worse and also the variance is more implying a higher probability of seeing very sad tennis i.e. seeing days when ball goes to his BH and I start wondering if it is going to go wide or halfway into the net. Do you even know the number of unforced errors he hit in his 2003 and 2005 Wimby finals? And nothing to do with any physicality – he is simply hitting straight forward FH and BH into the net and you can see the bad days from the start of his match (not that it suddenly comes after he is tired)

Give our thoughts some credibility; after all, we pride to have more than an average tennis intelligence and much more than a passing interest in tennis

* trying to quantify qualitative stuff just to render some base to the arguments

barrystar wrote:You refer to the 'height of the bar' which is continually rising - that's always been the case - every player who can stay at the top must run to stand still to an extent. Federer has not stayed at the top, but near the top (that's quite a difference). I accept that on his day he remains able to beat everyone else on the men's tour - beating Djoko now must be more difficult than beating most of his opponents in 2006 - and he would undoubtedly be better than he was without the need for any qualification if he did that regularly; but he can't, and instead he's started losing more regularly to more players in more situations that would not have happened to the Aus Open 2007 Federer.

But he coudl not beat Nadal consistently in 2006 either? You are saying he is less consistent in 2011 than he was in 2006 but to me he is less consistent for other reasons than age.

He is saving energy like Nadal and Djoko do for the big occasions. As simple as that. Even more so for him as he won it all. He is not going to risk any injury in Cincy and Montreal or MC and Rome.

He has no choice to have a better , more agressive and more consistent game nowadays cause if he were playing like in that Wimbledon 06 (link in the OP), he would be hammered nowadays. Being better today, doesn;t still guarantee him a win against the top 2 top 3 or even top top 10 players. 5 years is a lot and all those guys like Berdych, Tsonga etc...can also really improve. Yet Federer beats them convincingly when not injured or dedicated.

And you can;t dismiss what Pete says. He is the best judge about his game. Why woudl he say that Pete 2002 would be Pete 96 anytime if he did not think so? He knows better than you and me what it takes to beat Agassi 2002 v Agassi 1996 or any other players of these times. He faced them.

Fedex, I am not interested in polls cause there is a fan factor when considering such matter. I don't think many can look at a player game 5 years apart, then make themselves an accurate, objective idea on the strength and weaknesses of that player.

Look at CC and many others. Their argument is "when he was most dominant" not when he was at his peak. I also know when he was most dominant...but that'not what I am talking about.

A more intersting poll would be who changed their views since this thread started.

JuliusHMarx wrote:As already stated, in Wilander's assessment, Fed is better now than before, but Nadal and Djoko are better.
He also says Nadal's level of tennis last year was the highest level ever played. And that Fed is the best player ever - becuase of the 16 slams.

Does Wilander says Nadal 10 was better than 11? I disagree with this too. Without an improved Djoko, it could have been his best year, wrapping IW and Miami, all clay tournaments and 3 slams and this time dismissing Murray and Federer and not nervous Soderling, Berdych, Almagro and Verdasco!. ...But I certainly agree with his first comment.

Fedex

The number of times he UEs on shots that he is under no pressure on is what's really striking.

I think we need a clearer definition of what it means to be a better player. Is that judged on just one match and how good he is at his best or by how he performs throughout the year? No doubt his general performances have gone down and for more reasons than just the game becoming more physical. As for playing the best he ever has in any given performance this year well now he's so erratic that his level drastically varies within the performance itself so its still hard to judge. Is playing really well to nearly win and then losing considered better than playing very well and winning?

It's interesting to notice that despite evolving and adding to his game, Federer has not been able to match the game of his main rivals.
As things stand, I don't think Federer will win another slam.
The main reason is not his game, it's the lack of heart.
Nole and Nadal have heart, Federer doesn't. Talent is not everything and it isn't enough to win you a tennis match these days.
I know it's a concept many can't get their head around, nonetheless, that's the bare truth, like it or not.

I disagree NITB. He has matched it. It's about a point there and then and noone can draw such conclusion on "he can't match them" when clearly he has. Djoko USO 2007 "matched" Federer bar in experience of slams and that's why he lost in 3 sets . Federer himself says he could have lost that match in 3.

When you say "heart" you mean lungs don;t you?

Also, I think Federer 2007 was better than 2006. his H2H v Nadal is 3/2 for Fed this year and is back to 6/8 in overall h2h, I believe. His beating of Nadal in the masters 07 is one of his best performance versus Nadal. Yet he was less dominant in 2007 than 06, already showing signs that he won't fight for all tournments like he did in 05/06.

Anyone willing to argue that Mardy FIsh is not better at 30 (31 next month) than in 2006?

I am ready.

It's likely that some people consider the ability and/or willingness to fight for all tournaments (and thus avoid losses that would otherwise be wins) is part of what makes a player 'better'.

JuliusHMarx wrote:It's likely that some people consider the ability and/or willingness to fight for all tournaments (and thus avoid losses that would otherwise be wins) is part of what makes a player 'better'.

Yes. Quite a few people actually. BUt the thing is nowadays the tour is so physically tough that top players prefer to pull out than fight while tired. In 2006 Federer could dominate and win while tired thanks to his talent. Nowdays talented or not you are in with a real fight from round 1. No zib or Balleret or Vik (remember them anyone) anymore to make it easy. And in 3 years it will get tougher cause the Monaco, Granollers and other Mayer will be better or be replaced by more complete players.

Tenez wrote:Anyone willing to argue that Mardy FIsh is not better at 30 (31 next month) than in 2006?

I am ready.

So? I could say are you going to see Rafael Nadal have a resurgence in four years time say. Can you see him playing with such dominance in a few years time than he did a couple of years ago? I'd say not and would suggest he peaked in his early to mid-20's. Like we could say the same for other players as well. But I'd ask you to show me where Federer blew a two set lead in a slam in 2006 and why he hasn't won a slam now for well over a year. I wouldn't say it has a lot to do with players around him as Nadal had gone off the boil of late, Djokovic has improved whilst Murray has stayed around the same and we could say that del Potro has fallen off the radar but has recovered but not back to where he was.

Are some suggesting that the evolution of tennis from Borg 74 to Djoko 11 reached a plateau from 2006 to 2011?

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Tenez wrote:Anyone willing to argue that Mardy FIsh is not better at 30 (31 next month) than in 2006?

I am ready.

So? I could say are you going to see Rafael Nadal have a resurgence in four years time say. Can you see him playing with such dominance in a few years time than he did a couple of years ago? I'd say not and would suggest he peaked in his early to mid-20's. Like we could say the same for other players as well. But I'd ask you to show me where Federer blew a two set lead in a slam in 2006 and why he hasn't won a slam now for well over a year. I wouldn't say it has a lot to do with players around him as Nadal had gone off the boil of late, Djokovic has improved whilst Murray has stayed around the same and we could say that del Potro has fallen off the radar but has recovered but not back to where he was.

I was only kidding...I am not ready to go in circle with you.

Point still stands though Tenez.

Federer NEVER blew a winning 2-0 lead in slam events in 2006 but has done it twice this year on surfaces he is most profficient on? Why if he is better now? Also why no slam wins if he is better now? I mean he had a decent chance at Roland Garros but still couldn't overcome Nadal who wasn't at his best in Paris this year. It all points to Federer not being as good as he was in 2006 in my opinion and a fair few others on here an in tennis in general.

Tenez wrote:I disagree NITB. He has matched it. It's about a point there and then and noone can draw such conclusion on "he can't match them" when clearly he has. Djoko USO 2007 "matched" Federer bar in experience of slams and that's why he lost in 3 sets . Federer himself says he could have lost that match in 3.

When you say "heart" you mean lungs don;t you?

No, I mean exactly what I say: HEART.
A superiorly talented player would not crack under somebody's game. Lungs wise, Federer's probably better than them all.

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:I disagree NITB. He has matched it. It's about a point there and then and noone can draw such conclusion on "he can't match them" when clearly he has. Djoko USO 2007 "matched" Federer bar in experience of slams and that's why he lost in 3 sets . Federer himself says he could have lost that match in 3.

When you say "heart" you mean lungs don;t you?

No, I mean exactly what I say: HEART.
A superiorly talented player would not crack under somebody's game. Lungs wise, Federer's probably better than them all.

Wasn't Fed's heart bigger in that FO and 5 sets of USO (especially the first TB when it was crucial?). In fact It's only when Djoko's heart burst and realised he had lost that he went for the kamikase shot he coudl not play before.

Tenez wrote:Like what? his tap tancing skills?

This is what I expect from some one who says
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.

It is possible to prove, if you have an 'open mind'.

Your 'emotional' attachment to Federer, despite all your protestations is obvious.

Watch the AO 2010 final (that Federer won). There are times when Murray drags Federer wide outside of the court and ball hits the rim of the frame and goes behind Federer. You can check UTube, if you like.

The TMC 2006-2007 matches (end of a full season) where he can get to shots which are at 5-10 degrees angle from the net and still hit winners.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMmVf4PBAg0

There are similar winners in 2010-2011 but much rarer. Also watch the first MP saved by Djokovic in USO 2010 and watch the desperate BH mid-court lob that Djokovic smashes away.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1c0VyCRvow

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:I disagree NITB. He has matched it. It's about a point there and then and noone can draw such conclusion on "he can't match them" when clearly he has. Djoko USO 2007 "matched" Federer bar in experience of slams and that's why he lost in 3 sets . Federer himself says he could have lost that match in 3.

When you say "heart" you mean lungs don;t you?

No, I mean exactly what I say: HEART.
A superiorly talented player would not crack under somebody's game. Lungs wise, Federer's probably better than them all.

Wasn't Fed's heart bigger in that FO and 5 sets of USO (especially the first TB when it was crucial?). In fact It's only when Djoko's heart burst and realised he had lost that he went for the kamikase shot he coudl not play before.

That was not heart, but pure obstinance as he hates losing to Nole. The heart failure shows best against Nadal.
Just compare Federer in the semi-final and final match at FO this year.

noleisthebest wrote:Just compare Federer in the semi-final and final match at FO this year.

What's the difference between Federer 2006? At least he won a set after having lost 2 very closed one. In 2006 he collapsed after the first set.

Nothing to do with heart versus Nadal. It's all about lungs. When will people finally realise that? He had the heart to beat Nadal on faster or lower bounce surfaces in 2006, 07, 09, 10...and maybe soon in 2011. Clay is about physique. That's why Djoko beats him there even more easily than anywhere else nowadays.

Tenez, you have made a mistake bringing Fish in the discussions. Now, if I understand you correctly, are implying that almost everyone improves on their tennis skills with age and experience....

Now, I read somewhere that the median age of all GS winners (till date) is between 24 and 25 and average about 25 with standard deviation of less than 3. And that standard deviation is high because there used to be a number of younger players winning than the older ones. Using this fact and interpolating with your theories mean that skill multipled by physicality has always remained maximum at 24 and younger players then push physicality factor up while the older one increases his skill but falls behind on the multiplication!

Then why do you even blame Nadal. If throughout the last 4decades, physicality levels have constantly kept rising such that the skills have failed to compensate for it, then Nadal has done nothing out of the ordinary - he has just been the agent to push the physical barrier which was inevitable, right? After all, the data is for more than 40 years!

I dont know if you can understand my point but all I am saying is that the average is 24 and 25 and not 27 or 28 because it is difficult to win after 29 or 30 - to soem extent, Agassi has been an exception and Fed is trying to use his full array of shots now to try and live with the younger lots (everyone does - Ljubo, Stepanek everyone tries to be aggressive but most fail). Sometimes he could get all those shots in and he is made to look very very bright and sometimes he looks incredibly sad missing all of them

Fedex_the_best wrote:I dont know if you can understand my point but all I am saying is that the average is 24 and 25 and not 27 or 28 because it is difficult to win after 29 or 30 - to soem extent, Agassi has been an exception and Fed is trying to use his full array of shots now to try and live with the younger lots (everyone does - Ljubo, Stepanek everyone tries to be aggressive but most fail). Sometimes he could get all those shots in and he is made to look very very bright and sometimes he looks incredibly sad missing all of them

Looks like you have not read the thread. The average is 24 25 cause the new generation coming from a bigger pool of players (at least until now) with new technology, diet and technique overtakes (or shorten) the peak player(s)' careers.

So no different than Djoko just did with Nadal. Djoko was being beaten by Nadal before but now he is simply better. But it's not only Djoko, it's the whole new generation (Murray, Delpo) who learnt that a DHBH is better (more efficient at least) than a SHBH v Nadal and they also leant to get fitter. Nadal, the one-in a century athelete, is now caught up physically by Djoko and Murray. Murray and Djoko will have a hard time in a couple of years to hold back those big hitters coming soon.

Fish is a good example cause he is a player with some weapons but his fitness is simply now at 30/31 much better than in his youth so he can make the most of his weapons. Same happened to some extend to Agassi who won 5 of his 8 slams at 29+ and Lendl who was still number 1 at 30 despite teh new generation coming cause he had weapons (serve and FH) and managed to hold off the younger opposition better than McEnroe who was a crafty, talented player but with an obsolete technique (pushing the ball, one grip for BH and FH, too flat hitter, etc..).

Tenez wrote:Anyone willing to argue that Mardy FIsh is not better at 30 (31 next month) than in 2006?

I am ready.

Mardy Fish was playing with a packed suitcase's worth of weight on his body in this extra bulk affected his play. Thus, as soon as he dropped the weight, he has started playing better.

Federer, on the other hand has always been fit and has been very successful. He is paying the price for this success. His incredible winning streak has taken a toll on his body, along with natural aging. No one, not even Federer, can withstand the progress of time. As I said, his return is where his slower movement is being exposed. He could not read Roddick's serve in the 2009 Wimbledon Final and shots that used to paint the lines before are missing. This is down to a fraction of a second less in reaction time. At the highest level of tennis, that is the difference between making a winner and hitting the ball long.

Roger is still very, very good, but not the same player as he was in 2003-2007.

Spot on kemet and I said the same thing earlier.

I just love phrases like: "He's not the player he was". So he's someone else then, is he? You get wives saying: "He's not the man I married". I always enjoy that, too.
Intriguing that so much - including this post, alas - can be written on the subject that someone who gets older is probably not quite as good as he was when he was younger.

From the horse's mouth....

"Nevertheless, there are other reasons why he has an outstanding fitness record, such as his attacking style of play. "That's part of it," Federer said. "Shorter points, maybe, yes. I try to take advantage of playing offensive. When you're offensive you usually control where you're going to run. When you're on defence, you don't know where you're going to go, so you're affected by what your opponent's going to give to you, which I think is an advantage. But also look at how tense some players play, usually those lower in the rankings. They must burn more energy on a regular basis. I try to relax as a player. I think that helps on a daily basis."


"Some days you just feel your body not aching in terms of muscles, but you just feel the ankles or it's like the oil's missing a little bit here. You just feel like it maybe takes you a bit longer to feel like you want to jump out of bed and go for a run. Whereas as a teenager you can just jump out of bed and go for a half-an-hour run and say: 'Well that felt great.' Maybe some older guys feel that way, but I don't. I feel like you start slower, take a shower, take a stretch and then you're ready to go. So it takes a bit more time, like with a car, to get going. But once you're going it's great. Then the good thing is you don't have these unexpected brutal pains that you have as a younger guy: because you push too hard, the next day you're so sore.

"Obviously I'm much more professional today than I was when I was younger, because injuries at this point would be unfortunate, whereas at the beginning if you're injured just once in a while it's just normal."




http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/roger-federer-on-the-offensive-to-quash-talk-of-quitting-6263910.html

kemet/CC - I think these points (albeit obvious to most of us) are well-made

I found the introduction of Fish (quote as "a good example") to the core question of the thread pretty weird, and virtually meaningless - for all sorts of reasons. Not least the fact that he has played fewer than half the total number of tennis matches in his career to date as has Federer !

Amidst all the fog of technical analysis, scientific arguments and counter-arguments, you eventually find yourself stripping things back to basics ; summed up for me by just a couple of simple stand-out stats

- Sampras won 63 titles before he was 30 ; and just one after he was 30

- Federer made 21 out of 25 Slam Finals played from the start of 2004 up to the AO 2010. And since then he has managed just one out of the last seven

And somehow we're asked to believe that they are/were better players in their thirties than twenties ? You cannot be serious

As someone posted a while back, the debate goes round and round in circles, and with that in mind I'm ducking out myself after this. But all credit to Tenez for dedication to the cause and his sterling efforts to convince us all that day is night !

ps sfp : too right, wrt the matter of so much being written to state the obvious , ie that Father Time waits for no man........

lags72 wrote:
- Sampras won 63 titles before he was 30 ; and just one after he was 30

- Federer made 21 out of 25 Slam Finals played from the start of 2004 up to the AO 2010. And since then he has managed just one out of the last seven

And somehow we're asked to believe that they are/were better players in their thirties than twenties ? You cannot be serious

As someone posted a while back, the debate goes round and round in circles

It's only going in circle because you and others are coming with the very same irrelevant piece of information which is to hiligh the most dominant period of a player without considering the most important factor in tennis: the opposition!

When you look at some of the people Sampras was losing to in 2002 it's hard to believe him when he says he was 10 times better than in 1995.
Would Todd Martin, Wayne Arthurs and George Bastl really have beaten Sampras 1995?
Wait a minute, Todd Martin did beat him in 1995! Oh I give up.

Tenez wrote:
It's only going in circle because you and others are coming with the very same irrelevant piece of information which is to hiligh the most dominant period of a player without considering the most important factor in tennis: the opposition!

Wee Keira theory is what you do not subscribe to, which is what you are implying here?

It makes no difference, whether he has better game now vs. then vs. being Benjamin Button. The results are not there, the wins are not there. No matter how much better he is, he has been on the ATP Tour for 13 years.

The main opposition for Federer has been Nadal, Djokovic and Murray and del Porto at times. Since 2006 I'd say Nadal in the past year his level has dropped, Djokovic has gotten better, Murray has stayed around the same and del Porto has been hindered by injury so you see not any real raising in standards that I have noticed in my opinion but Federer's supply of slam wins have dried up. Why if he is better now?

laverfan wrote:
Wee Keira theory is what you do not subscribe to, which is what you are implying here?

I am not implying this at all. No more than today is a weak era compared to tommorow's. If anything I consider an era where lungs are more important than shot making poor in creativity.

It makes no difference, whether he has better game now vs. then vs. being Benjamin Button. The results are not there, the wins are not there. No matter how much better he is, he has been on the ATP Tour for 13 years.

It does to me cause when I watch him, win or lose, I am more impressed by his tennis now than in 2006. He is still the player I want to watch and even more so now against the new generation than against Zib, Hewitt, Balleret or Roddick.

Tenez wrote:I am more impressed by his tennis now than in 2006.

That is a personal, subjective choice, correct?

laverfan wrote:

Tenez wrote:I am more impressed by his tennis now than in 2006.

That is a personal, subjective choice, correct?

That is a personal, subjective choice, correct?

oh woe is me, said I was out of the thread ..... seems like I can resist everything but temptation ..........!

Tenez : I can't decide whether your "more impressed by his tennis now than in 2006 ..." comment is a failed attempt at a bluff or if you really do believe it. You must be must be one helluva die-hard fan if you do !

Given many of your forum contributions I'm intrigued that you should claim that a player at the end of his (albeit glittering) career is the one helping to maintain your interest. Nothing wrong in that. But as laverfan says, yours is a personal, subjective choice and as such it provides absolutely no objective or factual assessment (in the way that match results clearly do) of Federer's current standard. That's why we have a rankings system.

And do please let me know when you spot the "new generation" arriving. We're lucky with the quality that's around but I've been hoping/waiting for a break-through by some fresh blood for quite some time, and yet the faces at the top level have been the same now for many years. From 2005-2010 Rafa and Fed shared 21 Slams between them (Rafa took 9, Fed 12). And in this stellar season of his it's easy to forget that even Novak began winning Slams FOUR years ago.

Pray, where exactly are the new kids-on-the-block ...??

Fancy another round Lags? All yours.

Best thread ever

Thanks. But no thanks.

Far too busy looking for the "new - or perhaps 'Golden'.... ??! - generation"

noleisthebest wrote:Best thread ever

Thanks NITB.

I agree it was quite interesting.

I even learnt some things myself.
Real Fed fans don't want to consider that Fed's tennis might be overtaken/overpowered.
Djoko and Nadal fans are very keen to support the idea that their men are beating a peak Federer.
Others have considered the idea that Federer is playing at a higher level now than then, even if more erratic or more precisely, more selective about his commitment on the tour.
I even found Lydian a supporter of my observation.

Thanks to all anyway for participating.