30 year old Lopez reaches career high ranking

First topic message reminder :

In the Golden Era, another veteran thrives.

Just saying.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:http://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/2012/3/2/db36e846-a726-4265-9c51-3e5a6547ee0c.jpg

Ah lets see Fed fans point to age as one reason why jhe can't win a slam now but he is still six years younger than when Sampras beat him in that exhibition match.

Nice to see you coming around to my way of thinking Tenez. You yourself now choosing to point out that Sampras wouldn't have won nothing in this day and age because of court conditions and this is what I got shouted down for because I said if Federer had of played on the courts of today throughout his career his slam count would have been far less. Like I said it really has always been an issue - court conditions but Fed fans only see it as an issue now as things don't suit their player.

I am hoping that posters who think exhibition matches act as any measuring stick to performance are joking.

Is there really need for personal insults rotla?

Of course they only ever met once of note at Wimbledon which Federer won in five sets when he was a spring chick and Sampras was thirty (the same past his best age that Fed fans say their man is now). Besides surely since nearly all Fed fans here craves faster conditions then surely Pete's titles hold more credence as the courts were known to be quicker in his day. After all it is what Fed fans are hinting at here with Fed's era compared to today.

PM for you raiders.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Ah lets see Fed fans point to age as one reason why jhe can't win a slam now but he is still six years younger than when Sampras beat him in that exhibition match.

Nice to see you coming around to my way of thinking Tenez. You yourself now choosing to point out that Sampras wouldn't have won nothing in this day and age because of court conditions and this is what I got shouted down for because I said if Federer had of played on the courts of today throughout his career his slam count would have been far less. Like I said it really has always been an issue - court conditions but Fed fans only see it as an issue now as things don't suit their player.

Speechless on first paragrap.

Regarding your second paragraph, you do not understand that teh difference is that had the courts always played like today maybe Federer woudl have developed a DBH like everybody else. He was unfortunate to be talented enough to believe that on the then fast conditions his SHBH was te right choice and going to bring him many slams. He was right until the conds slowed down to ridiculous proportions.

I think Had Federer developed a DHBH, he woudl simply ave been unbeatable on those slows either. It's close enough like that with a SHBH.

oh dear this thread has become a bit pathetic hasn't it?

My post got deleted JHM ??? But rightly so, I know .

CC,

Tenez wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Ah lets see Fed fans point to age as one reason why jhe can't win a slam now but he is still six years younger than when Sampras beat him in that exhibition match.

Nice to see you coming around to my way of thinking Tenez. You yourself now choosing to point out that Sampras wouldn't have won nothing in this day and age because of court conditions and this is what I got shouted down for because I said if Federer had of played on the courts of today throughout his career his slam count would have been far less. Like I said it really has always been an issue - court conditions but Fed fans only see it as an issue now as things don't suit their player.

Speechless on first paragrap.

Regarding your second paragraph, you do not understand that teh difference is that had the courts always played like today maybe Federer woudl have developed a DBH like everybody else. He was unfortunate to be talented enough to believe that on the then fast conditions his SHBH was te right choice and going to bring him many slams. He was right until the conds slowed down to ridiculous proportions.

I think Had Federer developed a DHBH, he woudl simply ave been unbeatable on those slows either. It's close enough like that with a SHBH.

Tenez I do believe you felt court speeds (at Wimbledon for starters) altered around 2006 (when Federer was only 24) didn't you say? Well he has had six years now to try to adapt. Many players adapt and bring new improvements to their game ie Djokovic's serve, Murray's forehand etc etc etc so surely the great Federer can adapt as well? Besides lets remember that Novak Djokovic turned pro in 2003 so he needed to adapt as well to change in conditions, Murray turned pro in 2004 so also needed to adapt to changes also and both of whom to also prefer the quicker surfaces like Federer.

People need to realise here that I have said before and say again that Roger Federer is the GOAT in my opinion. However, that does not mean to say I will belittle other players achievements in whatever the conditions to ridicule them. Throughout tennis history we have had different court conditions and differing tennis legends in different eras and that will always be the case. Those players like the Nadals and Djokovic's of today will remain legends of the sport as will Federer and Sampras and so I really do not like buying into all this discrediting of these players that goes on. Anyways I am looking forward to this afternoons Djokovic V Murray semi-final.

PS No probs rotla

CaledonianCraig wrote:
Tenez I do believe you felt court speeds (at Wimbledon for starters) altered around 2006 (when Federer was only 24) didn't you say? Well he has had six years now to try to adapt. Many players adapt and bring new improvements to their game ie Djokovic's serve, Murray's forehand etc etc etc so surely the great Federer can adapt as well? Besides lets remember that Novak Djokovic turned pro in 2003 so he needed to adapt as well to change in conditions, Murray turned pro in 2004 so also needed to adapt to changes also and both of whom to also prefer the quicker surfaces like Federer.

No I woudl not say that conds at Wimbledon started to slow in 2006. Probably before butI don't want to get into more speculation about when the grass courts slowed and by what margins.

One can adapt a bit to slower conds by staying more in the baseline than one would have done but I hope you understand that none can change his game entirely to adapt to completely different style.

Noone will win a slam with a SHBH on those slow conds. SHBH, don't even get close to later stages bar Federer. e cannot change that.

I don;t know if you remember but circa 2007 a few of us discussed how Federer's FH was not firing as it used to. The reason is simple, he added more spin and therefore security to it to adapt to slower and higher bounce conds. Same to his BH to an extend. To do that he had to get even fitter than he used to cause it meant he had to rally more.....until more recently maybe thanks to Anncone he understood it was a bad strategy and the only one available to him was to actually get back to agressive mode.

That's Federer's genius and talent to adapt to the new generation even at 30 and run them close. He has teh talent for that and from what I can see no other player of his generation adapted as well nor does any of the top players will be able to adapt to the next generation or different conds.

Murray has been hitting FH for 20 years and he still hasn't got a great one. That the difference. The question for him is not changing it....it's about having one! ...more so under pressure.

Djoko has adapted by becoming fitter. He tried to change his serve and that certainly did not work. YOu cannot compare youngsters like Djoko and Murray who have always known those slow conds, and certainly came of age when the conds were at the slowest with Federer who comes from teh SVing era with natural strings and small stiff frames.

Just because a player can compete at 30 doesn't display genius and talent. I mean Ivanisevic won a slam at 31 I do believe so does that make him more of a genius. No of course not.

As for going back to Federer's changes due to conditions of course everyone has had to do it. I agree some managed it far better than others and maintained a successful career which is what I'd expect for one we see as the GOAT. I will disagree with you regarding Djokovic who has improved his serve and Murray's forehand has improved from where it was but still work in progress I hope. I wouldn't say that Djoko has always known these conditions or Murray as remember they were also playing as juniors in 2002/2003 so they did have to adapt.

Finally, Fed's slam drought is not all about court conditions but a number of other things all coming together at the same time as he was still winning slams on these 'slower' courts in 2010. In my opinion every player has his day and that includes the GOAT and I believe his day has now passed but his legacy will live on.

You can't improve on perfection.

This is the anecdote I would use with Federer. He play every shot in the book. Him getting 'fitter' would never make him a better player than what he is now. His style of play is one which will never be replicated. Conds have blunted his game along with the players who have the right tools for the right conditions. Nadal, Djokovic and Murray have all made the 'right' improvements to their games and hence why it has resulted in titles success. Roger is an outdated fossil as it pains me to say. He can compete, but the conditions have made it so players can blunt his game. It is rare that Roger is ever blasted off the court.

For me I think Federer fans are finding it frustrating that more and more players are coming off the same factory line as Nadal, Djokovic and Murray and are all doing the same. Retrieve retrieve and retrieve. Take his rivalry with Roddick. Fans of Roger enjoyed that more, not because of the one-sided H2H, but because Roddick would at least go for his shots and not take risk factor into his shots like most players do today.

Fans warm more to players like Tsonga, Gasquet and Dolgopolov because they play without the element of fear. They would rather lose in 3 sets playing attacking than lose in 5 in an Iron Man contest.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Just because a player can compete at 30 doesn't display genius and talent. I mean Ivanisevic won a slam at 31 I do believe so does that make him more of a genius. No of course not.

Mixing everything up as usual. I wrote 3 paragraphs about the change of conditions and that is what makes Federer special when compared with his generation. Goran was extremely talented but I woudl not have minded calling him a genius had he won teh FO at 31. He never had to change his game to win at Wimbledon. Like Ferrer being a clay specialist in his youth with a DHBH helps him stay in the race nowadays on all surfaces.

CaledonianCraig wrote:As for going back to Federer's changes due to conditions of course everyone has had to do it. I agree some managed it far better than others and maintained a successful career which is what I'd expect for one we see as the GOAT. I will disagree with you regarding Djokovic who has improved his serve and Murray's forehand has improved from where it was but still work in progress I hope. I wouldn't say that Djoko has always known these conditions or Murray as remember they were also playing as juniors in 2002/2003 so they did have to adapt.

Regardless, Murray and Djoko bet on the physical side of teh game, under Nadal's success, and the slowing down of the conds helped them get where they are today.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Finally, Fed's slam drought is not all about court conditions but a number of other things all coming together at the same time as he was still winning slams on these 'slower' courts in 2010. In my opinion every player has his day and that includes the GOAT and I believe his day has now passed but his legacy will live on.

You do not know what nor can you weight what factors contribute to Fed's slam drought. I see a few reasons. But he has been so close to winning slams that one factor migt be enough to have stopped that drought.

It is a combination of things and a lot of those combinations too many people are just too close-minded to admit to it.

Federer still won slams on courts that speed was slower than those when he started which you yourself agree with so singley court conditions are not too blame. You also cite physicality as a reason but again that is not wholly the case as after all he was losing in slams (notably Del Potro) who is not renowned for his physicality (far from it). In my opinion it is a whole plethora of things coming together to explain the drought of slam wins and one of those reasons is the high standards Nadal and Djokovic have played at since 2010 and before.

But then physicality can be proven somewhat in Nadal's form. 2010 he was immense and in 2011 he could not replicate the same standards. Djokovic elevated his levels and there wasn't many things technically he had to dramatically tinker with to achieve the success he had of 2011 and in 2012 thus far. If I was a Nadal fan I would be disappointed that He has only had 2 years in which he was won more than 1 Slam in a single season. What has Nadal done to improve? He upped his serve at the 2010 US Open and it helped his game tremendously and then he decided not to persevere with it is beyond me. Now he has decided on a heavier racket as he decides now that added power is what is required to get back to the top.

Federer has not been helped by his age, but also the peak of players such as Nadal and Djokovic. Aside from courts and conds. Roger had good years when the courts were slow because Djokovic and Nadal had not fully developed. This was Roger's peak without question. Since his standards have declined, Nadal's and Djokovic's increased. If we argue that Nadal and Djokovic were at the same age and development as Roger, the tools they would've required may not have culminated in the success they have now and yes that is speculation on my behalf, but the proof is there that Djokovic and Nadal are septicle to vulnerabilities on quicker surfaces.

Exactly lk. That is what I am saying. Court conditions and physicality are not solely the reasons why Roger's slam wins have dried up. People need to give a nod also to Djokovic and Nadal's form over the last two years which has been immense for first Nadal and then Djokovic.

CaledonianCraig wrote:It is a combination of things and a lot of those combinations too many people are just too close-minded to admit to it.

Federer still won slams on courts that speed was slower than those when he started which you yourself agree with so singley court conditions are not too blame. You also cite physicality as a reason but again that is not wholly the case as after all he was losing in slams (notably Del Potro) who is not renowned for his physicality (far from it). In my opinion it is a whole plethora of things coming together to explain the drought of slam wins and one of those reasons is the high standards Nadal and Djokovic have played at since 2010 and before.

You keep mixing things to muddy everything to allow yourself some muddy conclusions.

Tenez wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:It is a combination of things and a lot of those combinations too many people are just too close-minded to admit to it.

Federer still won slams on courts that speed was slower than those when he started which you yourself agree with so singley court conditions are not too blame. You also cite physicality as a reason but again that is not wholly the case as after all he was losing in slams (notably Del Potro) who is not renowned for his physicality (far from it). In my opinion it is a whole plethora of things coming together to explain the drought of slam wins and one of those reasons is the high standards Nadal and Djokovic have played at since 2010 and before.

You keep mixing things to muddy everything to allow yourself some muddy conclusions.

Not at all Tenez. Federer has won slams since courts began slowing down, he has also beaten Nadal and Djokovic (those physical monsters) before so physicality is not the full reason either. Obviously, in any case, Roger still feels he has a slam in him and capable of getting back to world No.1 so the conditions and physicality can't be that much of a problem to him otherwise would he be so upbeat? Hi slam drought is down to a combination of things and not just court conditions/speeds and physicality as some would have us believe.

Nadal may be remembered for his finals losses, but more than likely, for his 10 slams.

Djokovic may be remembered for 2011 (or a GS in 2012), less for his 2007-2008 exploits and loses.

Federer should be remembered for his achievements, not for his inability to win a slam in 2011-2012.

I remember McEnroe for his matches with Borg circa 80s, not for his loses to Courier (1992) or Chang (1991). He played a four-setter SF with Sampras (ATP #12 then), 10 years since his epic with Borg. He had amazing touch, but Sampras was ascending the mountain of Tennis, while McEnroe had already completed the pilgrimage at the peak in 1980s.

This Fedal debate will rage forever, but it does show a lack of available topics to discuss on 606v2 and some of the stagnation.

Watch some attritional tennis in Dubai.

CaledonianCraig wrote:... physicality can't be that much of a problem to him otherwise would he be so upbeat?

Positive attitude.

laverfan wrote:Nadal may be remembered for his finals losses, but more than likely, for his 10 slams.

Djokovic may be remembered for 2011 (or a GS in 2012), less for his 2007-2008 exploits and loses.

Federer should be remembered for his achievements, not for his inability to win a slam in 2011-2012.

I remember McEnroe for his matches with Borg circa 80s, not for his loses to Courier (1992) or Chang (1991). He played a four-setter SF with Sampras (ATP #12 then), 10 years since his epic with Borg. He had amazing touch, but Sampras was ascending the mountain of Tennis, while McEnroe had already completed the pilgrimage at the peak in 1980s.

This Fedal debate will rage forever, but it does show a lack of available topics to discuss on 606v2 and some of the stagnation.

Watch some attritional tennis in Dubai.

CaledonianCraig wrote:... physicality can't be that much of a problem to him otherwise would he be so upbeat?

Positive attitude.

Same with Connors. I remember his 1983 Wimbledon success, though people recount his 1991 exploits at the US Open.

What you get with Federer is that posters think it is either his standards have become poor or fail to understand how talent can fade out into the wilderness. I don't ever see him finishing outside the top 10 when decides to retire. Not many players can do that.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Exactly lk. That is what I am saying. Court conditions and physicality are not solely the reasons why Roger's slam wins have dried up. People need to give a nod also to Djokovic and Nadal's form over the last two years which has been immense for first Nadal and then Djokovic.

Thank you CC, it's a pity so many bitter federer fans do not give credit when credits due.

No amritia, Roger only loses when tired, and only gets tired because of unfairly slowed conditions (that where slowed down prior to his 16 slam run by the way). Therefore Roger only loses unfairly due to slowed down conditions. If those where not in existence according to our resident sage FEd would have 25 to 30 slams!!

I must agree with you that the excuses are extraordinary. I think Djokovic and nadal should be given credit for making life tougher for federer, but unfortunately this is not the case.
Also comical they complain 110% of the time about court conditions and how disgraceful it is, and when you did the same (on another thread) julius comes in with 'you shouldn't impose your view on court conditions, different posters have different views in ideal conditions.' Which is fair to a degree, but are the mods oblivious the 24/7 drone that normally goes on. Or do they only step in when fast conditions are being criticised?

We can have a slow court debate if we want, but my short article was simply pointing yet again to the lack of depth in the game; when a 30 year old serve and volleyer can make his highest ranking when the courts and equipment are more against him than ever before screams lack of competition.

bogbrush come back and make the same statement when Lopez actually wins a tournament of note. After all Ivanisevic was 31 in the early 2000's when he won Wimbledon so what does that say about that era?

One event, when the draw opened up handily, at the event suiting his game, proves nothing. A rank reflects his standing a year.

Come back and let us know when you can understand the difference.

Hmm what is a bigger achievement? Winning Wimbledon or achieving highest ranking of world No.15? I know which Lopez would choose.

It may be hard for you to fathom out things but sportsmen and women peak at different ages and has always been the case. Peaks don't just come when one is at the height of physical condition but can come with more experience and more time to mould and style their game.

Oh the 'late bloomer' argument?

And what a player might want has nothing to do with gauging their standing. You really are tying yourself up in knots to promote Andys standing.

CC - you've made Goran older than he actually is ! He was 29 when he astonished us all by triumphing at Wimbledon, ranked somewhere below 100

In 80 Slams over the past twenty years, winners beyond their 30th birthday have been famously rare, and I'm pretty certain that it's only Pete and Andre who have managed to upset the odds ...

Sorry of you think that sportsman peak at different ages is funny in some way. To argue that they don't is quite wrong and ridiculous is it not.

Snooker

Stephen Hendry peaked in his early 20's.

John Higgins peaked in his 30's.

Tennis

Hewitt peaked aged 21 or 22.

Nadal possibly peaked later at 24 and same goes for other players.

I could go through a heck of a lot of the other sports if you want but I think it is quite clear what I am saying.

Yes lags but he won Wimbledon and I think we can safely say Lopez won't be doing that. Like I said in any case players in all sports peak at different ages to suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

I'd never challenged the 'old Goran' argument, good spot. We can discard that or good now.

It must be very unusual for a player to journey brought his career of a decade or so and, after passing his physical peak, suddenly find his standing in he game is at an all time high. In the case of Lopez, even more remarkable given his game is really not as well suited to current conditions. Arguments citing 21 and 24 as examples of variation are just silly, as is bringing snooker into a discussion about the athletic aspects of sport.

Deliberately ignoring the difference between flunking one tournament and a years ranking is plain delusional. In any case, we now know he wasn't even 30.

And debunking the idea that sportsmen and women peak at different ages is also hilarious and delusional as you choose to put it.

CaledonianCraig wrote:And debunking the idea that sportsmen and women peak at different ages is also hilarious and delusional as you choose to put it.

Well now your Goran argument is dead maybe you'll reconsider the true history of late blooming in tennis, and consider the other hypothesis - there just isn't depth in the game at the moment.

No not at all. Goran winning a slam at 29 sure as hell beats peaking at world No.15 at 30 in my books. It also shows that players in their late 20's and early 30's are not spent forces as Federer is showing as well.

Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, Ivan Lendl and Jimmy Connors are players to win slams in their 30's and I'd hazard a guess there are a few more that have either reached slam finals or won lesser titles at the age of 30+. It just proves that players can still play at a high level at 30+. Lopez is not the first and won't be the last player in tennis history to achieve his highest ranking past the age of 30.

Oh dear, I did say o back when you knew the difference between one event and a years performance in assessing standard, but here we still are.

Oh, and those greats didn't peak after 30. You really do try hard to muddy a discussion with red herrings.

bogbrush wrote:Oh dear, I did say o back when you knew the difference between one event and a years performance in assessing standard, but here we still are.

Oh, and those greats didn't peak after 30. You really do try hard to muddy a discussion with red herrings.

What I am saying is that tennis players do not shrivel up and die when they turn 30 and can still be competitive and thrive.

just think what would happen if lopez remembered to switch his alarm clock for that wimbledon qf with the weaker Murray brother, poor guy did not get his breakfast for that clash.

The fact is at 30 an athelete is still at his peak. It obvious and proven on many occasions. Better stamina, as quick as ever (Lewis, Christie), performance (Pete, Goran, muster, Federer and many others) etc...though I agree that at 30 one does not recover as well from a previous match than at 25.

However in tennis the main factor shortening a players career is the opposition arriving with new technique, diets and technology, plus the added benefit of being trained versus more competitve players than the older guys have...and sometimes (often actually) change of conditions than originally trained on.

We really need to understand the above when comparing players of different generations.

CC comparing snooker with tennis is frankly absurd. And more absurd is you keep making that mistake of considering a player's peak according to results. You can do that if competing against a clock but not when the opposition is constantly changing.

THis is why your reasoning is completeling biased and almost always come with teh wrong conclusions.
It's like saying Borg peaked at 24 and not considering McEnroe and others a factor when Borg stopped winning. YOu cannot compare the era of Hendry v Griffith, Willie Thorn with teh one that included Hendry and Osullivan, Williams and so on.

It's not rocket science!

And likewise those that say because a player aged 30 reaches his peak ranking it displays a weak era is wrong as well. I mean step back and ask yourselves if this era is weak then it doesn't reflect well on Roger as he is going through a slam drought. Federer is part and parcel of this era as well.

As for saying using snooker as an example as being absurd I say not. Just because it is not taxing the body physically it taxes the body in other ways - mentally and shot alignment etc goes with time due to concentration powers waining etc. Snooker players have their peaks and troughs as well.

In any case it is not just all about snooker but all sports. For example look as Sir Stephen Redgrave the rower still winning Golds in his late thirties in a mightily physical sport, athletes continue as well to get success late in life ie 30+ such as Ed Moses, Haile Gebrselassie, Linford Christie and Kelly Holmes are just some examples in that sport to win gold medals. Other sports are the same ie 30+ does not mean your body is fit for the scrap heap in sport.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Ah lets see Fed fans point to age as one reason why jhe can't win a slam now but he is still six years younger than when Sampras beat him in that exhibition match.

Nice to see you coming around to my way of thinking Tenez. You yourself now choosing to point out that Sampras wouldn't have won nothing in this day and age because of court conditions and this is what I got shouted down for because I said if Federer had of played on the courts of today throughout his career his slam count would have been far less. Like I said it really has always been an issue - court conditions but Fed fans only see it as an issue now as things don't suit their player.

Sampras was 11 + years younger when Johnny Mac Thrashed him in the exhibition match next after year , so according to your logic Johnny Mac would have continued to have won slams in late 90's had he showed some interest . Your tennis knowledge is unparalleled as you make assumptions based on a single exhibition match, Take a bow, let 606ers learn the game from you.

Nope just pointing out that age and conditions aren't the sole reasons Federer slam wins have dried up as the form of Nadal and Djokovic deserves credit as I am sure Roger himself would be the first to give in that direction yet some of his fans seem incapable of it.

CaledonianCraig wrote:And likewise those that say because a player aged 30 reaches his peak ranking it displays a weak era is wrong as well. I mean step back and ask yourselves if this era is weak then it doesn't reflect well on Roger as he is going through a slam drought. Federer is part and parcel of this era as well.
.

I cannot talk for others but I believe this weak era argument is essentially generated by Socal, you and a few others when addressing Federer's dominant period, essentially because you have your idols doing well now. It's ony fair that some of us make fun of that current era when we see indeed that aging players find their best ranking in that period.

For me this era is the physically toughest, especially to in a slam. When it comes to technique and shot making, it's not particularly strong, or more precisely, it's an irrelevant aspect to success nowadays.

REgarding the rest of yoru post, you mix everything again! I know I have been wasting my time.

Like I said elsewhere Tenez it depends on what floats your boat though. Your favourite is Federer and you have your reasons that he is your favourite ie plays the brand of tennis that appeals to you. Fair enough. Just like other tennis fans have Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro etc etc etc for their reasons and similarly because they play their brand of tennis. My point is, disregarding eras and strengths etc I have continuously said that Federer is the GOAT and a higher compliment than that can't be paid however the same cannot be said in reverse for others with the other viewpoint ie lavishing praise on Nadal and Djokovic for their achievements.

Well I do not believe in a 'weak era.' No era with such a great player such as federer should ever be called weak. What is true though is that apart from nadal on clay for a long period federer had no significant challenger, no brilliant inspirational players.

CC you can forget Tenez or any other extremist fed fan giving nadal/Djokovic any sort of credit it's not going to happen.

Tenez - I agree 100% that "comparing snooker with tennis is frankly absurd." In fact I guess the only thing the two sports have in common is that tennis is (sometimes) played on a green-coloured surface

However I do take issue with your assertion that "at 30 an athlete is still at his peak"

We often hear about the Slam winning exploits of past players in the latter part of their career, but I've never accepted such very rare and isolated events as any sort of definitive evidence that players - including even the great names - can perform with the same level of consistency in their thirties as they did in their mid-twenties.

Ken Rosewall (who perhaps doesn't always get the credit he deserves) was winning the AO and a USO even in his late thirties but I think we can safely say that from a physical perspective the game was simply very, very different 40 years ago from what is today. Those times will never return.

Once we get into the 80's there were just two Slam wins by an 'oldie' - both by James Scott Connors at the USO. He had just turned 31 at the time of his last Slam win.

In the 90's we had Gomez winning RG at 30 and then Korda winning an AO when only just beyond his 30th birthday. Nobody can ever take away their achievement, but with all due respect to these guys I think the moniker one-Slam wonder would not be unfair

From 2000 until today, only Agassi and Sampras have managed to win Slams beyond 30, and in all three cases there were certain peculiarities which I happen to think are unlikely to be seen again. In what turned out to be Pete's very last competitive tournament, USO 2002, he beat a 32-year old Agassi in the Final, so it was very much a clash of the pensioners. Agassi won two AO's in his thirties but the records show that the highest-ranked player he had to contend over 14 rounds was at number 15. Again, somewhat odd I'd say by today's standards.

Nor does Goran provide any evidence at all that "at 30 an athlete is still at his peak". He was 29 at the time of that emotional Wimby triumph, but once he turned 30 he never won another tourney of any description, let alone even making another Final. So hardly at his peak !

As has been pointed out by various posters (including my goodself ), it's clear that Federer is still playing impressively well, having passed the big 30 milestone himself last year. Whether or not he has the consistency or stamina to match much younger players over seven Bo5 rounds to capture yet another Slam remains to be seen. Personally I'm highly doubtful and would never say he is currently "at his peak." But whatever the future holds, he has nothing to prove because in terms of his stellar career achievements Fed's work is pretty much done. What's more interesting for me looking ahead is to see whether the younger players making up the top 10, and those yet to make top 10, can either surpass, match, or (in the case of Andy M, for whom I have huge respect & admiration) even come close to his record ......

From 2000 until today, only Agassi and Sampras have managed to win Slams beyond 30,

In a sport like tennis it's absolutely irrelevant to link achievements and peak form for the reasons I have explained above.

The only factor, and I agree an important one, affecting a 30yo is his recovery time from previous matches. But if well managed, you shoudl not be able to see drop of footwork or even reflexes. And if there is any, it woudl be compensated by experience and even better timing on the baseline shots.

The decline really is seeable at 33 34 and that is essentially down to an even longer recovery time.

amritia3ee wrote:Well I do not believe in a 'weak era.' No era with such a great player such as federer should ever be called weak. What is true though is that apart from nadal on clay for a long period federer had no significant challenger, no brilliant inspirational players.

I see this statement time and time again from you. What it means is...

Fed has competition on clay from one guy -> Strong era for clay with just two players playing for the big trophy

Fed had no competition on other surfaces (grass, hard) -> Actually he faced players like Agassi, Safin, Hewitt etc. Aren't these inspirational or brilliant? Or just because Fed won against them make them useless? Then by same logic, Fed was not inspirational or brilliant for Nadal on clay either...

Then remains the question of likes of Gonzo, Baggy whom Fed faced in slam finals... If you question these players, I would suggest you to watch the way Gonzo was playing in the tournament till Final (and in the Final as well) and the tornament that preceded (Kooyong Classic). He was in form of his life and was playing some unbelievable tennis during that period.

In USO finals, he faced Hewitt, Agassi, Roddick, Djokovic and Murray? Good luck to you if you think these were uninspirational/not brilliant...

Murray and Djokovic were young 2007/2008. Agassi was past their prime for most of the period, similar about Hewitt. Roddick meanwhile only really had one shot, wasn't a great baseliner.