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.

laverfan wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Fed was better in 2006. But not by that much, most of what he lost is in a half step of speed. But I also agree with Nitb, the competition today is also much stronger. Roger lost a little and his opponents got better than they were in 04,05, and 06. People often like to think it is either one or the other, i think it is a bit of both. Anyone one can't see how Nadal and Djoko are lightyears better than Nalbandian, Davy, Ljubi, Hewitt, Safin, and Roddick is really willfully blind.

This business of competition being stronger is based on what one has seen in their tennis watching years. It is a very narrow and self-serving piece of information.

For example, Looby just won the second set against Tsonga in the Metz final.

And this from 2009....

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/305466-near-misses-david-nalbandian-vs-rafael-nadal-indian-wells-2009
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW858OWOoNc


And this from 2011... what aggressive shot making rewards

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

Laver, you're not seriously trying to say slamless competition from the early-mid 2000s can be compared to today's....

Well most of the players like Hewitt and Nalby are old and wounded last few years so that is not often worth talking about. Nalbandian in 2003-2007 was a truly magnificent player, could easily deal with Djokovic in those days atleast!

Tenez wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

Tenez wrote:We tend to idealise the past, like we idealise Agassi's returns, Pete's serve. McEnroe touch, Safin's BH and so on. They were the first with that superior skill or shot but the fact is the game moves on and those skills are shared by more and more players and tend to become the norm. Pete would have his serve returned pretty easily nowadays, Agassi's returns would not be the best, Safin's BH? well how most top players have as good one now. McEnroe? great, but have people see what Stepanek can do? Put Stepanek in McEnroe's time and he'll have a laugh.

Tenez: before making assumptions about what we tend to idealize (always good to talk in first person) why don't you bother to check what the greats of the past had to say, regarding physical decline.

Here for example you find an interesting reading: Ivan Lendl explains what changed in his game during his latter years.

Not surely the technical aspects of his game, that usually instead progress steadily, and according to Peter Flaming, improve even after retirement.....

Have a nice reading!

He is not saying something very different, in fact even confirming that technically you still improve after retirement. He even goes as far as saying that stamina improves. the turning and and reflexes are affected especially if not enough time between 2 matches. The stiffness certainly takes longer to go away but Lendl retired at 34. At 32, 33 sure I won't be holding the same speech but Federer only just made 30 and I expect him to physically feel it more and more from now but what I have seen of him recently when on form, is the best I have seen with some of his 2010 matches. And I waiting to see a past display that can challenge the AO10, Masters 2010, FO 11 and teh first 2 sets of USO11, especially considering who he is playing.

And yes, JK, I use "we" because we all have this tendency to idealise the past. It's simply the because we are younger and something new is done and therefore impresses our mind in a way it will be tough for the new comers to do.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/paul_kimmage/article6349407.ece?token=null&offset=144&page=1

No, what Lendl said is very clear: " it’s the agility of turning [you lose] and agility was starting to go. A split-of-a-second late here, two splits there and the point is gone. And you can’t do anything about it. There is nowhere to hide.”

He recognize that the loss, even very modest, in agility and reactivity he experienced was enough to limit his ability to compete and winning the points and matches.

It can't be a coincidence the fact that Lendl won just one slam out of his total of eight in his thirties.

As for Federer, there is no question he is ageing well and will be very competitive for another couple of years. Also, with Nadal looking in decline as well, wouldn't be a surprise, to me, if he'd managed to grab another couple of slams.

It doesn't mean at all Federer is playing at his peak now. Please see video below for the true vintage Federer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tZhQi8aDcg

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Well most of the players like Hewitt and Nalby are old and wounded last few years so that is not often worth talking about. Nalbandian in 2003-2007 was a truly magnificent player, could easily deal with Djokovic in those days atleast!

Disagree, could never see what the big deal about Nalby is. Good but no slam material.

laverfan wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Fed was better in 2006. But not by that much, most of what he lost is in a half step of speed. But I also agree with Nitb, the competition today is also much stronger. Roger lost a little and his opponents got better than they were in 04,05, and 06. People often like to think it is either one or the other, i think it is a bit of both. Anyone one can't see how Nadal and Djoko are lightyears better than Nalbandian, Davy, Ljubi, Hewitt, Safin, and Roddick is really willfully blind.

This business of competition being stronger is based on what one has seen in their tennis watching years. It is a very narrow and self-serving piece of information.

Don't you know Socal yet? He sees everything through Djoko's eye.

I knew that the point I make in this thread who be used by the fanboys who don't actually understand in which way, nor why the game is tougher now than then.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:It can't be a coincidence the fact that Lendl won just one slam out of his total of eight in his thirties.

As for Federer, there is no question he is ageing well and will be very competitive for another couple of years. Also, with Nadal looking in decline as well, wouldn't be a surprise, to me, if he'd managed to grab another couple of slams.

It doesn't mean at all Federer is playing at his peak now. Please see video below for the true vintage Federer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tZhQi8aDcg

Yes but Lendl is talking about when he retired..not at 30. He won the AO at 30, beat near peak Sampras on carpet at 31 and 33 and lost a pretty close match at 34 against him too. As I said, I certainly expect Federer to show signs of slowing at 32, more so much longer recovery time, especially if the game keeps being tougher. I am talking about his best now (or in the last year) v 2006.

I have not seen a video which can show otherwise.

socal1976 wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Disagree with the article, I don't think Federer is anywhere near as good now as he was back then otherwise he'd still be no1. He's inconsistent throughout the year. He has random, unexplainable unforced errors. So what if he's learned to play Nadal better now, that just amounts to what you said about Roddick knowing what to do against Federer but not having the skills to do it. Playing better against one or two players is not the same as an overall improvement. He can't even deal with the big hitters anymore.

Socal, aside from Nadal and Djokovic I don't see any real difference in the level of the field. Even Roddick caused more trouble in slams for Federer than say Murray. On another note I think Roddick is underrated. Sure he's somewhat one dimensional but under the faster conditions with the serve he had plus a better forehand back then and he makes for a tougher opponent than given credit for. Federer was just a bad match up for him.

Yes break in the fifth Nadal and Djoko have made the most substantial improvement of fed's rivals. But who was there to challenge Roger in 2005. Roddick, he was no where near the player of either of these two guys. Nalbandian? He never committed himself to fitness and neither did Safin. Hewitt, never had the weight of shot or firepower to challenge Roger or hurt him once Roger became more consistent and fitter. Having two great rivals vs. having no great rivals is the difference between winning 3 slams a year and not winning any. It is the very cream of the tour that decides who wins and loses championships and who determine the strength and weakness of any era. That is because of the nature of tournament tennis, you never have to play the entire top 20 en masse to win a grandslam. But in a top heavy era like the current one you are virtually guaranteed of having to play a great player in the semi and the final. That is why we don't see any one slam wonders anymore in this era.

I think federer's challenge then was close enough to what it is now. Roddick gets judged as a player on the effectiveness of his game today rather than the merits it did have for when it was developed. In all likeliness he would have more slams were it not for federer. Trying to develop an all round game at the expense of his strengths has hurt him imo. I also don't think in most cases there's much to be gained by looking at who someone beat in the final of a grandslam. For all you know for that one tournament only they could have been playing better than Nadal and Djokovic combined and so in getting to the final makes them as credible as any opponent. Anyhow all this may be going down the weak era route too much.

Tenez are you saying you don't get that feeling when you're watching him that he could just randomly shank the ball at any moment or hit long for no reason? For me he hasn't been the same since 2008.

And JK, can you really compare that rally versus Hewitt with today's pace and retrieving skill? They are pushing the ball for 5 mins...now rallies are much more demanding. In that clip Federer can afford to push the ball back. Nowadays, he has no choice but to bully his opponents if he doesn't want to run out of gas after 3 games.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Tenez are you saying you don't get that feeling when you're watching him that he could just randomly shank the ball at any moment or hit long for no reason? For me he hasn't been the same since 2008.

Yes he can shank now as well. But I see him shank less. I see that he has more secure shots enabling him to built his points better. The way he played in that USO 11 was just amazing. We are under rating it cause he lost those bloody MPs. Had he won them I am pretty sure a few more would have agreed with me. Beating the number 1 twice in a row at slams when in 2007 he could have lost v a 20yo in 3 straight sets?

Wilander might be right on this one.

Tenez are you saying you don't get that feeling when you're watching him that he could just randomly shank the ball at any moment or hit long for no reason?

This is what I'm talking about! The match where he lost to Berdych fairly recently was an example of this, where I was basically just praying that his next shot would go in the court rather than miles out or dumped in the net. A lot of his matches I've watched recently are more a question of expecting him to make errors, rather than the mind-blowing winners that he used to. Admittedly he did play well at the US Open, but I've seen too many distinctly average performances recently to take your point seriously, Tenez.

Well the end of 2007 was the beginning of the end and Novak at that point was better than anytime we've seen him except for this year.

Chazfazzer wrote:

Tenez are you saying you don't get that feeling when you're watching him that he could just randomly shank the ball at any moment or hit long for no reason?

This is what I'm talking about! The match where he lost to Berdych fairly recently was an example of this, where I was basically just praying that his next shot would go in the court rather than miles out or dumped in the net. A lot of his matches I've watched recently are more a question of expecting him to make errors, rather than the mind-blowing winners that he used to. Admittedly he did play well at the US Open, but I've seen too many distinctly average performances recently to take your point seriously, Tenez.

Exactly Chazfazzer, I couldn't agree more. More often than not, when I watch Federer now, I just know there's more chance he whacks the ball wide or dumps it into the net and I'm just left thinking what on earth is going on? Perhaps part of this is to do with concentration rather than him losing any skill because he has won everything and the motivation to keeping winning can't be the same as it was. Ever since he got the French and then Wimbledon again in 2009, he was in the zone and the confidence that he could beat anyone was still there in grand slams which explains how he got to two more successive grand slam finals and remarkably lost the USO '09 (when it was his to lose) but won the Aussie Open '10 making up for it.

I have little doubt that if he was keeping the ball in play longer he would increase the pressure on the players he faces and like in 2004-2007, they will wilt away. The perfect example is when you compare Fed's performance against Tsonga and Djokovic's in Wimby '11. I said after Fed lost that there was no way Djokovic would allow the same thing to happen because he would keep the pressure up and Tsonga would wilt under it and that's exactly what happened. Instead of hitting the ball wide or into the net like Fed did so often, Djokovic kept it in play and the number of break points forced Tsonga into more errors. An easy win for Djokovic against an opponent Federer should have had no problem with. The fact he lost when he was 2 sets up to love really typifies the issues he faces. It's not terminal because otherwise I wouldn't watch Fed anymore and despite how unlikely it seems I think he can still win one or two more slams but as I've said when and where is anyone's guess..

I think the reason why Federer is having those wild shots is because hes essential game is not based on rallying and he is not comfortable rallying all the time.

That's a plausible explanation NitB. If Paul Annacone is meant to help, he can work on this with Fed. In fact, getting Fed to become comfortable with rallying is what will open the door to beating Nadal more often as Nole has shown...and this might be important if, as is likely, we start seeing Fed placed on Nadal's side of the draw. It's going to start happening....the question is when. I'd love it to happen for the Aussie Open '12 because Nadal's record there isn't as strong but there's a good chance a match between the two would be evens and would be far more of a spectacle than on clay @ RG.

Chazfazzer wrote:

Tenez are you saying you don't get that feeling when you're watching him that he could just randomly shank the ball at any moment or hit long for no reason?

This is what I'm talking about! The match where he lost to Berdych fairly recently was an example of this, where I was basically just praying that his next shot would go in the court rather than miles out or dumped in the net. A lot of his matches I've watched recently are more a question of expecting him to make errors, rather than the mind-blowing winners that he used to. Admittedly he did play well at the US Open, but I've seen too many distinctly average performances recently to take your point seriously, Tenez.

The match v Berdych in Ciny or Montreal are now irrelevant. Because as mentioned, he is not going to kill himself for a TMS nowadays. Didn't he pull out of Shanghai 2 days ago? Proof is his match v Tsonga in cincy and Tsonga at the USO. Different animal. Why cause I agree he doesn't recover as well as in the past and wants to stay focus for his slam.

You don;t want me to talk about his loss v Volandri in Rome 2007? I am considering his best tennis now v then. Back then he did not need to be top form to beat the rest of the field. Back then the rest of the field was beating Djoko and Nadal regularly outside clay. Now the rest of teh field is distanced by the top 2....yet Fed is still biting at their heels.

Fair enough Tenez but that doesn't explain the limp performance against Tsonga @ Wimbledon '11, if, as you say, he's saving it all for slams. It wasn't like he was on a losing trajectory, he was 2 sets up and like near all the Fed fans I expected a str8 sets victory. In hindsight one could argue it's better he lost because I actually think Fed raises his game against Djokovic and we might have ended up with a Nadal/Fed final and I'm not sure Fed would have won that.

noleisthebest wrote:Laver, you're not seriously trying to say slamless competition from the early-mid 2000s can be compared to today's....

I am not. The named players being slam-less can also be due to the dominance of one or two players.

For example, Tsonga and Murray are currently slamless, like Nalby or Blake. Does that mean that Tsonga and Murray should also be considered "bad' players?

For example, Nalby beat Rafa and Rog, in consecutive tournaments in Madrid and Paris, 2007 (both HC). Slamless Looby beat Rafa @IW 2010. Roddick (slamless since 2003) beat Rafa @Miami 2010.

There will always be examples which can create problems for any type of logic to be applied. That is why I watch Tennis. Dodig and GGL are slamless, so are Melzer, Gasquet, Monfils, Simon, Ferrer, et al.

I am suggesting a 'balanced' view. There are many posters, who state very clearly, that they did not watch tennis in specific periods, hence the claims for corresponding eras being 'weak' somehow is removing the essence of Tennis.

Do Johansson and Korda and Edmondson become better just by winning a slam or one-slam wonders?

Ah. I'm a little late joining an interesting debate .

For me how I've seen Federer in all these years, he doesn't play much different from what he did earlier in 2005-06 but there have been changes as expected. Like he himself said "Tennis changes from about every 5 years". What all have changed for Federer in these years. Lets see.

What all have gone bad. Firstly, his BH down-the-line shots. He was very consistently able to do it a lot more times than he is doing it now. why he misses those now? Thats another discussion.

Second is his serve. Earlier was much more potent weapon that it is now. I see his off days with the serve much more. He is unable to pull out those on important points, which he was very easily able to do earlier. why?? Same another discussion.

Thirdly his defenses. He is often looked struggling with power hitters and is rushed more often than he ever was.

What has gone good for him? Not many but for starters his forehand shots. It looks more commanding now.

But more than anything else, what has changed for him is his desire to win, his will to keep trying to play his best again and again, day in and day out. His priorities have changed now, and he himself has accepted that he takes his losses a lot easier than before.

Another thing is more than the changes in Federer, his game and his desire to win, its the change in the way tennis is played these day are the ones that affect his performances. Federer transitioned himself very well from the server and volley play during his starting career to baseline game. But how the game is moving on towards the physical side of tennis, is very tough for a 30 year old to adapt to it.

luciusmann wrote:Fair enough Tenez but that doesn't explain the limp performance against Tsonga @ Wimbledon '11, if, as you say, he's saving it all for slams. It wasn't like he was on a losing trajectory, he was 2 sets up and like near all the Fed fans I expected a str8 sets victory. In hindsight one could argue it's better he lost because I actually think Fed raises his game against Djokovic and we might have ended up with a Nadal/Fed final and I'm not sure Fed would have won that.

THat's where his 30 come into play. Something was wrong with him physically at Wimby 10 and 11. He played ok for 2 sets, not great but after that he could not exocet himself when returning. Something went wrong in that match.

Good points raiders.

I however think that the down the line BH is less used now than then cause it's a risky shot. It was risky then but back in 2006 it was worth the risk. Nowdays with DTL BH you simply have to hit with more pace to have any chance of shaking off the opponent. Because the ball comes with more spin than back then, it 's also a tougher shot to time, add the slower courts and the shot is hardly worth trying. Note however that it's the shot that enabled Fed to break DJoko in the second set of the USO11.

NITB made the point about the serve too and she was right. Why? I don;t know but might be something to do with the conditions again. Djoko himself used to have a great serve 3 or 4 years ago, and we had guys whose serve were really tough to handle. It seems hard to find a good server nowadays. Sure you have the likes of Isner and Karlo but even them I feel that they are easier to break than then.

So yes maybe Fed drop a bit of his serve but it seems very much a general phenomenon probably due to bigger balls and slower courts. Look at the FO how well he served with those fast balls!

I am not trying to convince just that I cannot be convinced otherwise. The game has got in a very physical direction and Fed had to gain in consistency AND agression to be able to beat the top guys....and clearly he is there or thereabout with teh top 2 still.

Consistency seems to be the game these days and he was more consistent back then so its difficult to see that version of himself not doing better now. He had all the great attacking shots back then as well and what's more he actually used to make them almost all the time. Add to that his speed and focus and then there isn't really much more to spectulate over.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Consistency seems to be the game these days and he was more consistent back then so its difficult to see that version of himself not doing better now. He had all the great attacking shots back then as well and what's more he actually used to make them almost all the time. Add to that his speed and focus and then there isn't really much more to spectulate over.

His results were more consistent, his game wasn't actually. As flemming said, technically you improve even after retiring...His form is more ups and down now but when on form, his shots are more solid now. That is the main reason why he is still a force able to beat the top 2 who have improved 2 folds since 2007. As said, Nadal is now consistently reaching the finals of all slams. he improved (essentially physically) more than anybody and doesn;t lose like he used to outside the FO....yet Djoko is now also much better than Nadal...and despite all that Fed had 2 MPs v Djoko 2 weeks ago.

Another clip of Fed 2011 (v Davydenko at Doha).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pnPMNuRbgE

and then

Fed 06 v Ljubicic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uI88svRQWY

Tenez wrote:Good points raiders.

I however think that the down the line BH is less used now than then cause it's a risky shot. It was risky then but back in 2006 it was worth the risk. Nowdays with DTL BH you simply have to hit with more pace to have any chance of shaking off the opponent. Because the ball comes with more spin than back then, it 's also a tougher shot to time, add the slower courts and the shot is hardly worth trying. Note however that it's the shot that enabled Fed to break DJoko in the second set of the USO11.

Right Tenez. BH down the line is one of the most spectacular shots to watch. It needs great skill and timing as the margin for error is very low in that, especially when hit with a single hand. Slow court conditions doesn't make the shot worth trying as its a risk shot and the reward may not be a winner. I also feel this shot becomes more difficult with the high bounce. Also a SHBH gets tired much more quickly in prolonged rallys. Nadal always kept pounding Federer on the backhand cross courts rallys persuading him to go down the line. Federer succeeded on many occasions, but also missed on many. And if its an important point that's a very risk shot, and not worth. Though Nadal has a big lead compared to Federer in their h2h, but most of the those matches which Federer lost were very close, and it was like some of these such misses that decided it. Nadal never was able to pull out those close match with great shots going for winners. It was always a result of a Federer miss. This is where I feel the chances for win are better for a great retriever against a great shot maker. Its more risky to go for winners; its always more difficult to go for a great winner than a staying back defending and retrieving. If Federer could have played even for a game or 2 or even a few points in tie-breakers like Djo can i.e. staying in a rally with Nadal than going for straight winners, this h2h could have been different. A close loss hurts much more than a clear one.

Tenez wrote:
So yes maybe Fed drop a bit of his serve but it seems very much a general phenomenon probably due to bigger balls and slower courts. Look at the FO how well he served with those fast balls!

I didn't exactly mean that his serve has dropped. Its not like he regularly serves less compared to the earlier days. Most days he serves as good as he ever did. I only wanted to say that his off days with the serve are in much more frequency that it was before. Like in US open 2010. He served great in those windy conditions against Soderling in qtr. finals but couldn't manage in the next game against Djokovic. He at times struggles to get the big serves more often than he did earlier. Why is this so? It needs another topic.

Yes I agree on both accounts.

If you look at the clips of Doha this year v Davydendo (above), he pulls off a few DTL BHs. Then the ball comes lower to him and that makes it easier to time it and generate pace from. I also think that his shots, especially the returns are more agressive than they were during his hey days where he had more options to win a point and did not have to risk it all in the returns.

To summarise this thread, he knows that in 2011 he has no choice but to be more agressive if he wants to preserve his main strength: his superior eye/hand coordination (talent), as we know it's a quality that drops off considerably as the match goes on but more importantly as the rally extends. This is clearly why he hired Annacone.

Now to play that agressive requires some good practice and clearly is more dependant on the form of the day than his previous game. This is why some may find him more erratic than in 2006/7. However if everything clicks, his game reaches better level than in 2006 where like you can see in this OP clip, he almost looks happy topush the ball back.

Tenez wrote:
To summarise this thread, he knows that in 2011 he has no choice but to be more agressive if he wants to preserve his main strength: his superior eye/hand coordination (talent), as we know it's a quality that drops off considerably as the match goes on but more importantly as the rally extends. This is clearly why he hired Annacone.

How does 'eye/hand coordination (talent)' drop off during a match? Erm, talent doesn't go anywhere, what happens is the footwork necessary to produce those shots is impossible once a level of physical fatigue has set in. I maintain that what you're saying isn't any different from what other people have said, it's the footwork that's declined which is what produces the errors. You could say that more is asked of his footwork, and more is asked of his physical stamina, etc. due to the current style of play. I don't think that fully accounts for the Fed of the last couple of years as he just has off days now where his timing is all over the place, and against lesser players. Loosing to Hewitt in a final for example.

So his forehand might be smoother etc. now, but his wheels aren't as good, the engine isn't as strong.

droogle wrote:

Tenez wrote:
To summarise this thread, he knows that in 2011 he has no choice but to be more agressive if he wants to preserve his main strength: his superior eye/hand coordination (talent), as we know it's a quality that drops off considerably as the match goes on but more importantly as the rally extends. This is clearly why he hired Annacone.

How does 'eye/hand coordination (talent)' drop off during a match? Erm, talent doesn't go anywhere, what happens is the footwork necessary to produce those shots is impossible once a level of physical fatigue has set in. I maintain that what you're saying isn't any different from what other people have said, it's the footwork that's declined which is what produces the errors. You could say that more is asked of his footwork, and more is asked of his physical stamina, etc. due to the current style of play. I don't think that fully accounts for the Fed of the last couple of years as he just has off days now where his timing is all over the place, and against lesser players. Loosing to Hewitt in a final for example.

So his forehand might be smoother etc. now, but his wheels aren't as good, the engine isn't as strong.

NO. It's not the footwork that goes first, it's the precision of the shots for those using fine timing skills through SHBHs and flat FHs. If you are getting breathless, the sharpness of the shots go before your legs. Muscles lacking oxygen are not as precise and when you required to hit a pretty fine shots, they go first and this why you see lots of UEs even before you see the legs go.

The argument of losing to Hewitt is a non-starter and you know it. As if Federer was not allowed to pull a muscle??!!??

And BTW, this is exactly what makes Nadal's strength cause his shots have a much bigger margins, therefore he is not affected in the same manner by the longer rallies. It allows him to make the difference over time. He can ride many storms put up by his opponents as the match goes on...he remains with the same game, his opponents don't.

That was Toni's smart plan.....until one came on board with as good a stamina but simply better shots.

I've never seen Roger looking remotely breathless. I've seen him looking flat-footed.

It's not just Hewitt he's lost to, he's been losing to loads of players he never used to, no longer rallies involved. According to your thesis he should be beating everyone more solidly than ever except for the 'hyper-fit', Nadal, Djokovic etc.

I agree Droogle, Federer is as fit as they come - this part of the argument just doesnt wash with me, never has and never will.

With fatigue, the first thing to go is the footwork...because the body is the biggest thing to move around the court...getting into position will go first, and this affects shot timing as players start to over-reach. Also, as the core muscles get fatigued, so timing is also affected again...players start to under- or over-rotate to compensate for lack of energy. This is way its always been. Part of Federer's problem has been sticking wioth the 90sq in racquet. He changed from 85 to 90 because he was shanking too much...so it doesnt need Einstein to work out a move to 95 would reduce the shanking further. No modern player coming into the game now will choose a 90sq in racquet. But I suspect Federer is too scared to change this late on...but its a limitation in his armoury to not have a bigger racquet.

So, what is the argument here, that we remove fitness as a factor in tennis - how far should the pendulum swing to pure technique only deciding matches? Is Tenez saying tennis should NOT be a physical sport, and that fitness should NOT be important? Where is the line drawn Tenez? And how do you get to that line? The argument also assumes there is no talent on display with the current brand of tennis which is clearly wrong.

droogle wrote:I've never seen Roger looking remotely breathless. I've seen him looking flat-footed.

Breathless is a way of talking! I have certainly seen him breathless though. And Roger is certainly going to be the last to show it to the opponent. The facts cannot be denied. He has one of the worst 5 setter record amongst the top player (ranked 100th) despite having the best record on TBs in history.

You just have to look at the FO 06 final. He started strong on Bh and FH and ended up shanking like crazy beginning of the second set!...We did not have to wait 2011 to see him shank, did we?

As I said, many times, he has not got the energy to spare for TMS and smaller tournaments nowadays. That's clearly the difference between now and then on the physical side. He has lost many TMS final in 2009 and 2010 because he cannot recover from the previous day match (in particular v Djokovic). That is clear. But this is also the reason his tennis has got better cause he went back to agressive tennis and lose or win, he doesn't back down. That has made his shots better cause he goes for them on a routinely basis and they have become more secure.

We shoudl not copare the Federer of slams and the one outside the slams.

lydian wrote:I agree Droogle, Federer is as fit as they come - this part of the argument just doesnt wash with me, never has and never will.

So I am sure you want attribute his poor record on 5 setters down to his mental weakness, right?

Tenez wrote:That's clearly the difference between now and then on the physical side. He has lost many TMS final in 2009 and 2010 because he cannot recover from the previous day match (in particular v Djokovic).

Well, you seem to be agreeing now. So he has declined? Oh no, he's improved, he's losing non-GS events because he can't be bothered to expend the energy, even though he's a better player than the one who was winning EVERYTHING in former years. But he loses in grand slams too.

At the FO the commentators were taking about his forehand, saying he was hitting the ball so sweetly, as well as he'd every hit it. His forehand was beautiful indeed, it looked more effortless, more relaxed than before. . . but he wasn't moving the same as in previous years. His game has changed for better and worse. I agree with Lydian, it's a core thing, today's Federer is more economical but with less to spend.

droogle wrote:

Tenez wrote:That's clearly the difference between now and then on the physical side. He has lost many TMS final in 2009 and 2010 because he cannot recover from the previous day match (in particular v Djokovic).

Well, you seem to be agreeing now. So he has declined? Oh no, he's improved, he's losing non-GS events because he can't be bothered to expend the energy, even though he's a better player than the one who was winning EVERYTHING in former years. But he loses in grand slams too.

No I always made that clear from the beginning. The main difference is that back then his day to day tennis was good enough to beat most players. Now the competition is simply more physical and therefore chooses not to give 100% outside slams. We could see already back in 2007 having trouble against the more physical players like Nadal, Murray and Djokovic. Now the tour has gone so tough that he simply chooses when to peak.

However when he does, he does play better than in 2006. I am yet to see a 2007/07 performance clip that can rival some of his 2010 and 2011 matches.

TMC semi-final v Safin was pretty amazing.

Then he clearly chooses not to peak in grand slam events as he often has trouble against players that don't belong in your 'physical' category.

He's been having trouble with Nadal since Rafa was a ATP 17yo rookie in 2004. In 2004 Federer was already reaping the rewards of his strenous new training regime - surely you're not saying a 17 yr old Nadal was fitter and stronger than a 22yr old peak fitness Federer? (and he beat Federer in 2 sets on HC....hardly a marathon slugfest)

Yes the tour is physical, and Federer himself trained to be one of the most fittest out there - to be able to last for 4+ hr matches without loss of stroke production - that was Paganini's specific goal for him.

This physical stuff doesnt wash...yes he's older now and needs more recovery after matches so he reduces his schedule. But he's still amazingly fit inside matches, and I've not seen any discernible loss of fitness compared to a few years ago. Federer is not this glass-like ballerina you make him out to be. Rome 2006 always disproves your theory.

The field has simply caught him up in many respects. You were saying Federer was a better player yesterday compared to 2006...why is that then? Because the new generation of player have pushed him to greater heights. Its not all about fitness...these new players can play a little tennis too!

droogle wrote:Then he clearly chooses not to peak in grand slam events as he often has trouble against players that don't belong in your 'physical' category.

No he hasn't. In the last 8 slams, he lost 3 times to Djoko (despite have 2 MPs in 2 of them, once to Nadal, one versus Soderling on mud, and 2 in Wimbledon were he was not 100%. That's 7 losses of which 2 he was clearly physically impaired (Wimbledon) and one on clay where his agressive shots were neutralised by slow conditions. You have to consider that the opposition also improves. You cannot over look that and consider Federer's form as the sole measuring stick. Sod had never beaten Nadal prior to FO 09 either. Same slow conditions gave him a good edge.

But take the match of FO10...and hinestly can you say that Federer play badly? I remember at the time I was saying for the first two set it was the best I saw federer play...but as the rain started, Soderling's firepower started to make the difference. It's clearly a case where Federer coudl have won that one in 3....like never lost a set to Soderling since that final.

lydian wrote:
This physical stuff doesnt wash...yes he's older now and needs more recovery after matches so he reduces his schedule. But he's still amazingly fit inside matches, and I've not seen any discernible loss of fitness compared to a few years ago. Federer is not this glass-like ballerina you make him out to be. Rome 2006 always disproves your theory.

The field has simply caught him up in many respects. You were saying Federer was a better player yesterday compared to 2006...why is that then? Because the new generation of player have pushed him to greater heights. Its not all about fitness...these new players can play a little tennis too!

Well you are actually supporting my case now...except that you do not see the effect a few 7 shot rallies have on his (and whoever hits flatter) UEs count. Lydian you do not (want) to understand that a physical match is played in the rallies...not over the 5set distance though a 5th set only amplifies the problem.

And you still believe Federer a fragile player mentally who despite being fitter has a worst record than Seppi and John Lloyd in 5 set record?

If slow conditions grind Federer down, why did he do so well at Hamburg (the slowest clay court out there...)?

Federer can be beaten by better players on the day you know... ;-)
Remember Canas?
There are not always perfect reasons that fit your argument why he loses every match.

lydian wrote:
Federer can be beaten by better players on the day you know... ;-)

Actually no. He has produced the best tennis ever seen thus far and until I see a better player (on fast surfaces), he will have reasons for losing.

The reason he was doing well in Hamburg is that he had the weight of shots to hit through the slow conds...like Soderling in rainy FO.

bogbrush wrote:TMC semi-final v Safin was pretty amazing.

Yes, this is a good example. I agree, it's close to his 2010/11 best. I woudl not say better but certainly as close as it gets. But then what? houston was pretty fast, he was playing fast lower bread and butter ball for him. Give him the same today and he will thrive. Unfortunately he is not facing shot makers like Safin nowadays. Well he is but they are much more solid than Safin and can retrieve the ball with much more ease than Safin ever could.

..so it coudl be a misleading clip.

Slower conditions work well for Fed now, he has more chance of getting to the ball and taking it early.

At the US Open we saw Fed run out of gas after 2 sets, it wasn't 'in the rallies' that he was tiring.

droogle wrote:Slower conditions work well for Fed now, he has more chance of getting to the ball and taking it early.

No. This is clearly wrong again. Fed lost at the AO versus Djoko and Miami v Nadal cause of the slow conds, he says it himself. Djoko kept sending the ball back to him until an UEs came in. The faster balls of the FO and USO made the difference versus Djoko.

It's not about getting to the ball that gives him the advantage cause the opposition (Nadal and Djoko) can benefit from that more than him. It's just the pace at which the ball goes through the air that really benefit Federer. That is when his DTL BH becomes a weapon again...like in DOha this year....if you cared watching the highlight v Davydenko.

Actually I know where Tenez is coming from; if you're prepared to write off MC losses as him not committing, and Wimbledon to some back thing (which I don't rule out, he wasn't moving and Tsonga was serving big but nothing monsterous) then sure he can show that on a big stage when it matters like mad he can play great, so long as his opponent doesn't just make him run.

However there are a lot of ifs and buts there. The big problem I have is that his movement falls away very easily now, and I put that down just to age. For this sport he's now a real veretan.

bogbrush wrote:
However there are a lot of ifs and buts there. The big problem I have is that his movement falls away very easily now, and I put that down just to age. For this sport he's now a real veretan.

Look at Djoko and Nadal...they can't even finish a match now despite being 5 or 6 years younger. It's physically tough out there ..much tougher than in 2006.

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

At 2.06 you have the typical rally that affects the shot quality of the attacking player. Djoko does play a long rally in the 1st point of the TB and then again at 6/4 to tire Federer and take his edge of him. Federer ends up sending FH into the net giving Djoko the chance to come back in the TB. Following point Federer doesn't even try to retrieve the point. Change of end at 6 all and a breather from Federer allows him to pull a great DTL BH versus Djoko.

and Wimbledon to some back thing (which I don't rule out, he wasn't moving and Tsonga was serving big but nothing monsterous)

If his back was hurting enough to affect his game, then he would be grimacing and touching it. His serve seems to lose it's twang through the 4th and 5th set against good rally players, maybe it's more in his wrist or shoulder.

Neither player is more attacking in that clip (at 2:06).