Was Federer better in 2006? (Poll added)

First topic message reminder :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOQp62NI2_I

I don't think so! His today's shots are actually better, more agressive, including his FH. It might be that it seemed windy that day and he tried to keep the ball in court so used a lot of spin. But in general I find his shots today smoother, his BH slice for instance is more elegant. His shot selection is also better now. You can tell he has learnt to play Nadal...over the last few years. The problem is that Nadal got even stronger.

lydian wrote: got the help to implement them with Annacone (this is what Annacone is excellent at doing - as did with Sampras and Henman).

Sampras had his own motivation.

Contributions to Henman's career are perhaps debatable.

Contributions to Federer's 'later' career are still in progress and would require some hindsight in a few years.

One thing that stands out to me is the fact that Annacone was engaged as Sampras was getting closer to walking away in the sunset. Does Annacone's Federer engagement signal the same point in time in Federer's career?

I have this image at AO of Annacone standing with a bunch of towels to give them to Federer, but never had an opportunity to give them to Federer, IIRC, 2011 against Djokovic.

I woudl not like to give Annacone too much credit. Federer always mentions his other 2 coaches as well in any discussion. I think Annacone is part of a think tank probably consolidating what Federer already thinks or maybe helps him make decisions when unsure. He even names his wife as part of this think tank.

In 2006 he won 3 slams this year he didn't win any.

I am a new member, this is my first post, although you may remember me from such forums as BBC 606 and My Tennis Lounge. Tenez talks a huge amount of sense for me. The Federer decline has been exaggerated for some time now and it wouldn't be far from the truth to call it a myth. I haven't read through this whole thread but I read maybe a quarter or a half of it. I have a few points to contribute, I hope they weren't covered too much already.

HI HB - Great to have you here! Some of us have been looking for you actually, so glad you found your way here.

Enjoy the reading of this thread. It's been voted the best thread of v2 2011 thanks to plaenty of contributions from all sides.

With the experience he's gained his best now is conceivably better than before but I would have said he was declining as soon as 2008. I remember following his progress through wimbledon and even though he was getting through his matches in straight sets, I was always waiting to be amazed by him in his matches and I don't think that came at all apart from certain moments during the final. At that point in time I clearly thought the Fed of a few years prior would have taken care of business.

After his world tour finals semi against Ferrer, Federer was asked about this and he said "it's normal to improve as a player" and more or less said he was better now, and the standard is higher today.
And I tell you this, Federer 2011 playing in 2005 would have beaten Nadal and Puerta and walked off with the trophy. I remember the 2005 matches well and for me that is not even a debate.
I think the argument that Federer was better before is easier to make for 2005/2006 (he lost to Berdych, Tsonga in Soderling in recent years in slams but never to such ranked players in slams back then), but less so if you add in 2004/2007. Berdych beat him in 2004 when he was just a kid. He also lost to Hrbaty in 2004. In 2007 #55 ranked Canas beat him twice in a row on hard courts, so did #53 ranked Volandri (on clay). These occasional losses were probably worse than any from this year.
Look at where Nalbandian (29 years old, ranked 64), Roddick (29 years old, ranked 14) and Hewitt (30 years old, ranked 188 yes some injuries this season but probably wouldn’t be in the top 30 even without them) are in the rankings now. That’s real decline. They are the same age as Federer. Two of them are former world no 1s who battled with Federer for that position in 2002-2003 and even Nalbandian has been as high as 3. The notable thing about the Federer decline is how meagre it is. He is only losing to Djokovic, an on-fire Tsonga and Nadal this year in the bigger tournaments.

Henman Bill wrote:After his world tour finals semi against Ferrer, Federer was asked about this and he said "it's normal to improve as a player" and more or less said he was better now, and the standard is higher today.
And I tell you this, Federer 2011 playing in 2005 would have beaten Nadal and Puerta and walked off with the trophy. I remember the 2005 matches well and for me that is not even a debate.

Indeedy! Nadal 05/06 was half the player he is now and Federer would know how to play the old Rafa.

I was talking about the French Open of course, relative performance of 2005 vs 2011. Federer's 2011 was his best ever performance there perhaps.
And here is a cut and paste job from a comment of mine on another forum:

5 years (from 06 to 11) is a long time. Tennis standard, like sports, like anything, improves over time and therefore the Federer “decline” represents in fact a fairly constant Federer being caught up and overtaken. It is a relative decline then rather than an absolute one.

The fact that Federer 2006 and Djokovic 2011 are on a par means Federer was the greater player because he came sooner. I mean if Robin Soderling travels back in time and plays 1969 Laver he will probably beat him reasonably comfortably, but that doesn't make him more of a great in his era. 40 years from now some 18 year old kid will be playing who, if he travelled back in time to play Federer 2006, would probably spank him in straight sets. But so what, he probably won't be half the great Federer is.

Federer remember grew up playing on late 1990s/early 2000s fast courts with serve and volley and the rackets, strings etc of the day. The fact that he has adjusted to meet modern conditions and is still meeting Nadal and Djokovic on a very nearly even footing says a lot about who is the greater player really.

Connors when he got older (Federer's age) lost his last ten matches against the younger Borg four of these in a row when he got no more than 3 games in a set. Against Lendl, Connors lost the last 17. Mcenroe, at Federer’s current age, lost his last 6 against Lendl. Agassi lost his last 8 to Federer. These streaks were done across all surfaces. Always, the game is moving on the new generation better than ever rather than the old guard absolutely weakening. So many examples like the above in tennis history.

So Federer in being able to win perhaps 1 in 3 against Nadal and Djokovic and have at least one surface (indoor hard) where he is still the best is doing better than most other greats in history were at this time in their career.

As mentioned above HB, have a good read at the thread. It's pretty good. But you have summed up why players decline early in tennis. Essentially it's down to the new opposition arriving with with new training regime and ne technology which accelerate the decline of the previous generation.

First, we have had a bigger pool of players taking on the game since the beginning of the game, therefore more competition.
Then there is the huge factor of technology improvement. McEnroe#s game became amazingly impressive with a larger graphite frame a year after he got used to it (83) . But it was too late for him as his game was learnt with a small wooden frame and those who learnt the game with a big frame had learnt to maximise the benefit of nes technology and very quickly mcEnore was overtaken by Becker and Edberg.
Then came the luxilon strings, which completely changed the dynamics of the game. Add to the lighter racquets and we have a game that coudl not be played in teh 90s.
Slower surface is another factors which can heavily affect a ranking. I always give the example of Pete of won 14slams on fast courts but none on slow clay.
And finally new diets allow players to run like they could not 10 years ago.

Fed went through many of those changes and did extremely well to remain at teh top, considering he learnt his reflexes at a time surfaces were fast and his best opponents were SVing, playing with 100% natural gut at the time and a 85sq frame. An amazing talent to be able 10 years on to win teh masters beating all top 8 players for teh second year running.

Yes, I think that's true about technology change. I've never been an expert on the specifics but learnt a bit from you and others on 606. I watched Borg v Roger Taylor today from 1973 and it was a very slow pace. I imagine someone like Soderling or Berdych could have demolished them. But then again, they had wooden rackets in 1973 I think. I played with those and it was a heck of a difference, I could hardly get the ball over the net.

I think 2006 was probably his best year and he may have been a notch better player than now for that one year but it was only one year. And I would take the Federer of now against the Federer of 2004-2007, if that makes sense.

Agree with the comment about his decline in 2008, but I think he went back up again in 2009-2011. So it was just one tough year for him.

I think Federer took longer to reach his peak (or near to peak) level on clay and it was costly as Nadal emerged. He seemed to reach that level in 2004 on other surfaces, but not until maybe 2006 on clay. I think the 2006 Federer (or other later years such as 2011) would have been able to win more clay tournaments, including the FO, if he had been playing in 2004 or 2005.

Have read the whole thread now.

Another factor is that the Federer of 2004-2007 was a great front runner, and on great streaks, and without other greats as opponents, and therefore wasn't fully tested mentally. He was able to produce great tennis because he was the undisputed no 1 (crown wasn't under threat) and because he was so far ahead in matches. Anyone can cream a backhand half volley from the baseline over the high part of the net for a down the line winner when the score is 6-4 6-2 5-1. When it's 5th set 4-5 30-30 and you know the other guy is really bringing it and meeting you on your own level, and in danger of surpassing you, it's a different matter entirely.

Hey HB - great to see you here !!

The thread took a bit of reading didn't it ?!

Along with the London WTF thread I think it grew into one of the biggest in recent months.

Speaking of live matches, I agree that it's worth getting to see Federer- Djokovic if you can. I saw this at Indian Wells and it was a high quality match with a deciding set.

I also went to the O2 a number of times this year. I went to all the big games: the Fedal, semis and final and so saw Federer play three times this year at the WTF as well as once at Indian Wells and once at the WTF last year. In every single one of those matches he was better by a clear margin than the one time I saw him play in 2004 (admittedly just one match in 2004).

As a Federer fan who sat through his narrow defeats at W8 and A9 in particular, it was a joy to see him play that well against Nadal, the 4 hour drive there and back was well worth it for 1 hour of tennis of that quality. And his backhand in that was beautiful. Against Ferrer he wasn't hitting as cleanly on the backhand side (it seems that Ferrer managed to trouble by getting more spin, or more spin deeper in the court at least) but the end result was good enough and after a shaky 2/3 of the set it was a good performance.

The final was a good match as well. Tsonga played very well, much better than I expected after his comments after the semi about being so tired and having had less rest time.

Were you there as well for that one Tenez judging by a comment above? It was a fitting match for the final and you felt an important one for Federer, especially after the Tsonga fightback.

I think federer was tested mentally back then but not physically. It's being tested physically by the top 4 players which makes it mentally much tougher.

In 2006 Federer knew he could oulast most players or find his game eventually in a 5 setter. Now he knows that his sharpness is likely to decrease as the match goes on cause rallies are simply twice as hard nowadays. This adds lots of pressure in the early sets. In fact Fed was under the same presure in 2006....but only againt Nadal and essenially only on clay. Now Nadal, Murray and Djoko can test him everywhere. ...A bit like Hewitt was doing prior 2003.

Henman Bill wrote:Were you there as well for that one Tenez judging by a comment above? It was a fitting match for the final and you felt an important one for Federer, especially after the Tsonga fightback.

Yes I was there. Was very good though I must say when I saw teh match again on youtube, it did not look as great. But just see those SHBH live are amazing. I love Tsonga so I woudl have been happy either way but certainly happier with a Fed win.

HB wrote - "As a Federer fan who sat through his narrow defeats at W8 and A9 in particular, it was a joy to see him play that well against Nadal, the 4 hour drive there and back was well worth it for 1 hour of tennis of that quality."
I was there, too. I don't think many left the arena thinking they had been short changed by only getting a 60-minute match. Fed fans can all die happy, now.

It depends on what you are looking for - I overheard someone who felt a bit short changed after seeing their 1 hour match given their 3-5 hour classics in the past. In terms of exhibition like quality though, hard to beat.

HB... you have kickstarted (restarted?) this discussion all over again? in some ways, but quite a bit of ground has been covered.

Federer may be technically a more 'complete' player, but his inability to win big titles, from a Federer Fan's perspective, is considered a 'decline'.

To put it in positive terms, his rate of improvement is slower than his peers. There are 'faster' cars on the roads, so his ability to tweak his engines and get an extra 5mph, while the new cars have doubled their speed, is a relative decline.

He can still play amazing tennis as WTF 2011 shows. Can he win a major, yes, I think he can.

Wasn't like I dredged up an old discussion or anything. I mean, my first comment on here was a matter of hours after another comment saying he won 3 more slams in 2006. His rate of improvement is only slower because is he younger, compared to people his own age is it better than average - Roddick, Nalbandian and Hewitt are the same age.

sfp/hb : interesting thoughts there

The WTF match was definitely impressive and - whilst nowhere near a classic - offered a timely reminder of just how comfortable even the ageing Federer can still look when he's on song. (and IIRC more than one ex-player commented on the night that it was the best they had seen from him for many many years....)

However in terms of a 'clinically-efficient' display during the season as a whole, I'd say Fed's WTF defeat of Rafa was some way below the standard of his performance in this year's USO R16 against Monaco*. Awesome stuff.

*and yes .... I know .... Monaco hasn't won 10 Slams ...!!

lags72 wrote:
However in terms of a 'clinically-efficient' display during the season as a whole, I'd say Fed's WTF defeat of Rafa was some way below the standard of his performance in this year's USO R16 against Monaco*. Awesome stuff.

*and yes .... I know .... Monaco hasn't won 10 Slams ...!!

That was extremely impressive. I am convinced that if conds were to be sped up again, Federer would still be as unstoppable as in 2006.

How good as he was at WTF, his shots simply don't look as effortless as they could as he has to hit through the dead slow pace. On faster surfaces, his confidence would grow rapidly.

Henman Bill wrote:Wasn't like I dredged up an old discussion or anything. I mean, my first comment on here was a matter of hours after another comment saying he won 3 more slams in 2006. His rate of improvement is only slower because is he younger, compared to people his own age is it better than average - Roddick, Nalbandian and Hewitt are the same age.

No, you did not.

He had a 'slower' ascension to the top, and he can still play scintillating tennis.

Didn't watched the Monaco game but saw the highlights. Nadal game I was there.
Nadal one was a different level for me, against a player that has gotten in his head in the match and is just one defeat away from potential all surface ownage.
Against Nadal he hit 28 winners to 8 unforced errors (more than 3 to 1). Against Monaco an average player it was W42 to UE21 ( 2 to 1).
Anyway, minor point, both great performances.

Does that mean Fed has all surface ownage over Nadal because he beat him on all the surfaces?

Understood HB.

I just thought there was something very fluent about the Monaco match, it seemed like 3 sets of near perfection prompting the old quip that Monaco should have paid him for the lesson. Sure, he's no Nadal, but he can put up a decent fight on his day

But unlike you I wasn't in London (or NY !), so you will have a better perspective. And yes, those stats don't lie ......

Henman Bill wrote:Didn't watched the Monaco game but saw the highlights.

Enjoy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsAKFha7eXw&feature=related

laverfan - not sure you intended that particular link as your chosen clip ......

It's seven minutes of warm-up formalities !

This - on the other hand - is same duration but action-packed with all the juicy bits https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOLrAYaLZ4Q

Hard-court (-core ...??) tennis pornography

Lags72
Ta for that link to the Monaco match. At first I thought I was watching a Fed match from earlier years. Incredible stuff. You'd think they'd include ONE POINT that Monaco won, though !

sfp - you're welcome

Have watched it around five times since I chanced upon it a couple of weeks ago !

Hope you had your volume pumped up - even the sound of ball hitting racquet and court seems tastier than usual

(Or is that just me getting a little over-excited ....?? )

Great link lags72, awesome play by Federer if I say so myself

lydian

Now I know you're a man of balance and perspective !