Will Djokovic now have a career like Federer?

First topic message reminder :

Will Djokovic now go on and have seasons like Federer in 2004, 2006 and 2007 and win the AO, Wimbledon, USO treble again this year like last year and have a career similar to Federer's?

Socal can you give me one example of a Slam you think Djokovic would have won if he had a different draw (in the semis).

I'm thinking FO2011 but after that I can't think of anymore.

socal1976 wrote:Is Roger a specatacular champion who probably would be a dominant figure if not the dominant figure in any era?

No - he isn't dominating this era.

JHM - Unless I've horribly misread things myself, you seem to have put words into CC's mouth there, albeit accidentally, I'm sure (?)

The question was in fact put by Socal - and he also provided his own answer (naughtily omitted in your quote ....!) which was "of course he is"

And to be absolutely fair to socal on this specific point, I honestly believe that what he is really saying is something like this : if you took Roger at his absolute peak and transported him in a time machine, then he is good enough to be "a dominant figure, if not the dominant figure in any era"

As for this era - well as ever, it depends on just what definition of "era" you would want to use. If "this era" began in 2012 then of course, he is not dominating at 31 (give or take a few weeks) Who could possibly be expected to do so at such an age ?? And though obviously not Federer - is anyone truly dominating ...?? It's a two-way tie I'd say right now, not surprisingly between the 1 & 2 ranked players.

Fed's peak years are invariably quoted as 2003-2007. But if we go on from there and take a span from 2008-2010 (ie before he hit 30) then he was still - to use socal's term - "a dominant figure." The case for saying that would be the combination of his Slam tally which admittedly trailed Rafa (four to six) but that he spent the most weeks as Number One during those years 2008-2010. And then 2011 was, it goes without saying, well & truly dominated by Novak.

Ultimately I consider it all somewhat academic anyway given that we're talking about two guys already acknowledged as true giants of the game, up to 2010, and since then a third in the shape of Djoker

lags72 wrote:JHM - Unless I've horribly misread things myself, you seem to have put words into CC's mouth there, albeit accidentally, I'm sure (?)

The question was in fact put by Socal - and he also provided his own answer (naughtily omitted in your quote ....!) which was "of course he is"

And to be absolutely fair to socal on this specific point, I honestly believe that what he is really saying is something like this : if you took Roger at his absolute peak and transported him in a time machine, then he is good enough to be "a dominant figure, if not the dominant figure in any era"

As for this era - well as ever, it depends on just what definition of "era" you would want to use. If "this era" began in 2012 then of course, he is not dominating at 31 (give or take a few weeks) Who could possibly be expected to do so at such an age ?? And though obviously not Federer - is anyone truly dominating ...?? It's a two-way tie I'd say right now, not surprisingly between the 1 & 2 ranked players.

Fed's peak years are invariably quoted as 2003-2007. But if we go on from there and take a span from 2008-2010 (ie before he hit 30) then he was still - to use socal's term - "a dominant figure." The case for saying that would be the combination of his Slam tally which admittedly trailed Rafa (four to six) but that he spent the most weeks as Number One during those years 2008-2010. And then 2011 was, it goes without saying, well & truly dominated by Novak.

Ultimately I consider it all somewhat academic anyway given that we're talking about two guys already acknowledged as true giants of the game, up to 2010, and since then a third in the shape of Djoker

I've fixed my post lags - thanks.

I've heard it said on this forum that Roger is playing as well as ever, yet he is not dominating this 'golden era', or even winning any slams. If the idea that Fed is playing as well as ever is correct, the only logical conclusion from that is that Nadal and especially Djoko, at No. 1, must be a better player than Federer.
And if we say that Fed would dominate any era (apart from this one), but Djoko is better, then we must conclude Djoko is the best player ever. Logically, that would be the only conclusion to drawn if we assume Fed is playing as well as ever - as some people claim.

Thanks JHM.

Setting aside talk of eras for a moment, (I've never been a fan of the 'era' label ...... ' golden' or otherwise ) I think I understand the point you're making - and if I have understood it, then I reckon we're on the same wavelength.

Federer is undoubtedly playing extremely well, as his overall results and W/L ratio since the USO clearly illustrate.

But ..... playing "as well as ever" .....???

For me, that's an easy one. In a word - No.

It's not a criticism. Just reality.

socal1976 wrote:

hawkeye wrote:socal1976

I do rate Federer and Nadal higher than Djokovic. That is hardly contraversial as numbers speak for themselves. So because I don't think Djokovic is the best player I am a Djokovic hater? That is ridiculous! Anyway I think he is a great player and has a good personality.

Nadal can sometimes make his opponants look "poor" even the best but that is because he is capable of playing so well. Particuarly on clay.

This may be throwing the cat amongst the pigeons but if Djokovic had beaten Federer in last years RG he may not have beaten Nadal in the final. This is often talked of as if it was a certainty but of course it wasn't. This is Nadal's best surface and over 5 sets and he would have had a good chance to get a win over Djokovic and stop the rot of 4 losses. If he had done that? Who knows he could have regained confidence and Wimbledon might have gone a different way as could the next two slams...

No that is precisely why I am ticked off we will never know because for whatever reason the grandslam committees have decided that Novak needs to beat both Roger and Rafa to deserve a slam and Rafa only needs to beat one of the top 3 guys. It is a massive structural advantage handed to Nadal that you can chalk to whatever you like, good fortune or whatever.

As for Nadal making his opponents look bad well I agree he does that on clay. But are you going to seriously posit here that David Ferrer is as tough a semi as Roger federer regardless of the surface. Weren't you guys the ones telling us that Roger has been to five finals and such at RG.

Whatever the cause maybe winning a Novak slam draw with Tsonga, Berdy, Del Po, and Fed in your half is about 100 percent harder than winning a slam with Ferrer, Murray, and Almagro in your section. And this unfortunately has been a reoccurring theme throughout their careers. Like I said as a Nadal fan I am sure your ecstatic about the resulting fedal protection that Nadal benefitted from especially at RG 2011 and at USO 2010

socal. To be fair it was only 14 months ago that Djokovic got to number 2 and then of course number 1. Until then if he didn't play Federer in the semi it would have been Nadal and then potentially the other in the final. Now I'm pretty sure neither Federer nor Nadal wan't to play him! It's tough at the top. Try and enjoy it. Djokovic has proved he deserves to be up there with them. Don't you think Djokovic plays his best against Nadal and Federer? I know I do and it's great and scary to watch.

lags72 wrote:CC- I hear what you say - up to a point - but I really don't think harking as far back as the sixties and seventies to the era of Rosewall, Laver, Newcombe (great though they all were) and winning Slams in their thirties, is really much of an indication to what can happen today. Tennis is after all almost a different sport, with an entirely different, more punishing schedule and hence a whole new set of physical demands ; in fact in many ways a different world. (we only have to look at some of the old footage .... )

Even if we consider a more recent, but still very long spell - say a span covering the last 30 years way back to 1982 : in that time there have only been 3 Slams ever won by players older than Federer is now. So that's 3 Slams out of a total of 120, or in percentage terms the chances are just 2.5%. Not great I'd say. (and it so happens none of those 3 came at Wimbledon).

So all in all, I think bogbrush has put things in clear perspective as regards the significance of the age factor ; the reality being that the Slams do start drying up once players hit their late 20's and, more often than not, stop totally after 30.

You said earlier CC that Federer fans often mention how well he is playing even at his current age. Well I guess that's true as regards the 'normal' tournaments over one week Bo3, but I don't imagine many of those fans are convinced that he will win more Slams. Sure there's a chance - but maybe that 2.5% stat tells us something.......

I think you know how much I admire Murray's achievements to date but I'm nevertheless somewhat bemused at your frequent 'reliance' on Federer as some sort of weapon in your discussions about Andy's prospects in the Slams. I find myself saying in all these debates that Federer's work on the Tour is largely done and as such I personally don't see him as part of the 'Murray equation' from hereon in. I think Murray's main opposition is now the group of players who will most likely still be around for the next 5 years or so, most notably Nadal and Djokovic of course, and they're the guys he needs to worry about long-term. Not Federer.

Fair enough about 30+ aged players being a rarity but it has happened as recently as the last 15 years remember it has happened and remember Federer is the GOAT so if anyone can then surely he can but if not then why not? That has to go down to the efforts of Nadal and Djokovic and where in this point have I ever mentioned Murray. I don't think I have. All I have said is that it shows how tough an era this is to win a slam in that even the GOAT is now fighting for scraps. Very true Federer has done it all and has the trophies in the cabinet but he is still in the game to win more slams and bursting a gut to do it and is finding it impossible. He will retire as the GOAT that is set in stone but the fact that others are depriving him of further slam wins aren't just down to age but down to the efforts and talents of others. After all posters do get slated for 'dissing' players of the past who struggled greatly to compete with Federer in his pomp but here we seem to have others 'dissing' players of today for actually toppling Federer and being able to beat him in slams. I cannot work that double standards thing out.

hawkeye wrote:It's tough at the top. Try and enjoy it.

I do try and enjoy it hawkeye, really I do

Ha ha! maybe in a weaker era.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Fair enough about 30+ aged players being a rarity but it has happened as recently as the last 15 years remember it has happened and remember Federer is the GOAT so if anyone can then surely he can but if not then why not? That has to go down to the efforts of Nadal and Djokovic and where in this point have I ever mentioned Murray. I don't think I have. All I have said is that it shows how tough an era this is to win a slam in that even the GOAT is now fighting for scraps. Very true Federer has done it all and has the trophies in the cabinet but he is still in the game to win more slams and bursting a gut to do it and is finding it impossible. He will retire as the GOAT that is set in stone but the fact that others are depriving him of further slam wins aren't just down to age but down to the efforts and talents of others. After all posters do get slated for 'dissing' players of the past who struggled greatly to compete with Federer in his pomp but here we seem to have others 'dissing' players of today for actually toppling Federer and being able to beat him in slams. I cannot work that double standards thing out.

CC, when Sampras was No 10 or so in the world aged 30, and considered the GOAT at the time, the idea that 9 younger players had surpassed him in the rankings wasn't considered a big deal. It's just how tennis works. So the fact that 2 younger players have overtaken Fed is also pretty much how tennis works.
It's not dissing anyone to say that Fed falling in the rankings is to be expected.

I would add though that it isn't out of the question that Federer could yet still win another slam. It could certainly happen if the draw opens up for him and there are early defeats for Nadal and Djokovic before the semis.

CaledonianCraig wrote:............................................................................................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................
Very true Federer has done it all and has the trophies in the cabinet but he is still in the game to win more slams and bursting a gut to do it and is finding it impossible. He will retire as the GOAT that is set in stone but the fact that others are depriving him of further slam wins aren't just down to age but down to the efforts and talents of others. After all posters do get slated for 'dissing' players of the past who struggled greatly to compete with Federer in his pomp but here we seem to have others 'dissing' players of today for actually toppling Federer and being able to beat him in slams. I cannot work that double standards thing out.

We do indeed see posters often talking of players who "struggled greatly to compete with Federer in his pomp" but this is not necessarily the same as 'dissing' them. I guess the (big) names which crop up the most are the likes of Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian and Safin. Personally I don't believe that any of these guys should be 'dissed' given that they are all former World No. 1's (except Nalby, 3) but I think it's fair to say they would all much prefer that R. Federer had not been around during their respective careers !

But once again CC, by ignoring (or at least downplaying) the significance of the age factor, you are accusing folk of creating a 'double standards thing' when in fact that looks IMHO exactly what you've ended up doing yourself ! I say this because the names mentioned above - and who I presume are the sort of players of the past you see as getting 'dissed' - are all pretty much the same age as Federer. Whereas the gap between Federer and the others within the top four today is as much as four or five years, and so naturally with Federer a few weeks off 31 the odds are very much in their favour whenever they meet him. This is not dissimilar from a point made in JHM's post :
"the fact that 2 younger players have overtaken Fed (ie in the rankings) is also pretty much how tennis works"

There was a close parallel with Sampras, who is of course Federer's nearest rival in terms of Slams tally. Pete's own prolific Slam wins (and, in his case, overall tour wins too) tailed off dramatically once he hit 29/30. There was of course the very notable exception of his last USO triumph in 2002, at the age of (only just) 31, but ironically the guy he met in that Final, a certain Andre Agassi, was even older than Sampras was ....

Things have changed a lot in the game even since 2002, and I somehow doubt we shall be seeing two 30 + year olds meeting in a Slam Final any time soon. If indeed ever.

lags72 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:............................................................................................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................
Very true Federer has done it all and has the trophies in the cabinet but he is still in the game to win more slams and bursting a gut to do it and is finding it impossible. He will retire as the GOAT that is set in stone but the fact that others are depriving him of further slam wins aren't just down to age but down to the efforts and talents of others. After all posters do get slated for 'dissing' players of the past who struggled greatly to compete with Federer in his pomp but here we seem to have others 'dissing' players of today for actually toppling Federer and being able to beat him in slams. I cannot work that double standards thing out.

We do indeed see posters often talking of players who "struggled greatly to compete with Federer in his pomp" but this is not necessarily the same as 'dissing' them. I guess the (big) names which crop up the most are the likes of Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian and Safin. Personally I don't believe that any of these guys should be 'dissed' given that they are all former World No. 1's (except Nalby, 3) but I think it's fair to say they would all much prefer that R. Federer had not been around during their respective careers !

But once again CC, by ignoring (or at least downplaying) the significance of the age factor, you are accusing folk of creating a 'double standards thing' when in fact that looks IMHO exactly what you've ended up doing yourself ! I say this because the names mentioned above - and who I presume are the sort of players of the past you see as getting 'dissed' - are all pretty much the same age as Federer. Whereas the gap between Federer and the others within the top four today is as much as four or five years, and so naturally with Federer a few weeks off 31 the odds are very much in their favour whenever they meet him. This is not dissimilar from a point made in JHM's post :
"the fact that 2 younger players have overtaken Fed (ie in the rankings) is also pretty much how tennis works"

There was a close parallel with Sampras, who is of course Federer's nearest rival in terms of Slams tally. Pete's own prolific Slam wins (and, in his case, overall tour wins too) tailed off dramatically once he hit 29/30. There was of course the very notable exception of his last USO triumph in 2002, at the age of (only just) 31, but ironically the guy he met in that Final, a certain Andre Agassi, was even older than Sampras was ....

Things have changed a lot in the game even since 2002, and I somehow doubt we shall be seeing two 30 + year olds meeting in a Slam Final any time soon. If indeed ever.

I doubt you will see that ever again anytime soon, unless Djokovic or Nadal are picked off in the early rounds, the likelihood of a Federer Slam final appearance become less and less.

That said I am not one for bashing the likes of Hewitt, Roddick, Safin. Hewitt and Safin were curtailed by injuries and loss of form and it has only been in the last 18 months that Roddick has endured a massive decline. Same with Ljubicic, Blake, Davydenko and Nalbandian. All good players, but not good at winning. Because we think of them now, we think poorly of them. Ljubicic and Safin retired, Roddick soon to retire. Blake and Davydenko suffering poor form and Hewitt almost gone completely. The fact Roger has remained a constant factor is the more remarkable.

This time last year the top 10 in the world were and their current ranking now:

1. Nadal - 2
2. Djokovic - 1
3. Federer - 3
4. Murray - 4
5. Soderling - 154
6. Ferrer - 6
7. Berdych - 7
8. Monfils - 15
9. Fish - 12
10. Roddick - 33

Go back 2 years and the top 10 makes even more interesting reading

1. Nadal
2. Federer
3. Djokovic
4. Murray
5. Davydenko
6. Soderling
7. Roddick
8. Del Potro
9. Verdasco
10. Tsonga

So it shows how much things can change in such small amounts of time.

lags when I speak of dissing I mean that it works both ways here. If those speaking of Federer's slam wins from 2003-2007 being in an age where Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian and Roddick were his chief rivals for slams is not as strong as one with Nadal, Djokovic, Del Potro and Murray are being accused of dissing those players of the 2003-2007 spell then I say also that today's contenders are just as equally dissed. We are told Federer is past his sell by date and believe that is being used as the over-riding factor as to why Nadal and Djokovic have taken over as top dogs is that not also disrespecting those two players then? I mean after all we have had various threads recently about Fed getting back to No.1, the road to No.1 etc etc and he has also had a very fruitful time in winning a lot of tournaments so he evidently isn't at the zimmer frame stage yet so though age is creeping up on him I wouldn't say it is the sole reason for his lack of slams since 2010. I would perhaps agree if he had a Nadal/Djokovic/Murray-style game but his style has always been to fore shorten points and so matches and so physically he has a game plan more designed that should maintain him physically in a better state.In any case, like I said, if you were to ask Federer when he has retired who his toughest opponent has been I think we can all hazard a pretty good guess who will be at the top of the list.

CC, I can only speak for myself, but I think Hewitt, Safin and Roddick (maybe not Nalby) as well as Nadal and Djokovic are all great champions and worthy slam winners and No. 1s
There are others who think Hewitt, Safin and Roddick are one-trick, or no-trick ponies or party animals who represent a weak era where Fed filled his boots. (While still somehow claiming Fed to be the best ever, to show how great Nadal and Djokovic must be to overtake him.)

Yes certainly some interesting changes there lkv2, but maybe there's also a bit of the plus ca change plus c'est la meme chose principle at work too.

By which I mean that the current top four have actually been in residence since way back in September 2008. Their exact order of placings has of course changed several times but the names have stayed the same in all that time.

As for OAP finalists : well at the risk of backtracking on my own argument, I guess it is just about feasible in the future. There seems so little sign of promising new blood on the horizon (Raonic maybe...?) to seriously test Nadal and Djokovic that maybe these two will still be slugging it out together at RG and Melbourne at the age of 30 +

I'm not sure how many would be buying tickets, although most folk are convinced they will have bashed each other into a pulp long before then anyway ....

CC : I have a better understanding of what you mean here in your latest post, not least the point about Federer's less physically-draining style of play.

Yes, the level and depth of competition, even though always tough in the men's game, has undoubtedly got even tougher since 2010, such that is now possibly at a new peak. (at least until the next new peak ..... !!) And the longer a player continues on the tour the more he will be tested and at times (inevitably) exposed by that competition.

All that apart, I think the fact that Andy Murray has grown up amidst such competition is clear testament to his prowess and overall ability. The very fact that apart from one QF he has made SF's or better in his last six Slams shows just how much consistency is needed to hold down a number 4 spot in the current game.

Of course they are all great champions but at the end of the day some are greater than others. I mean if I were to ask you for who you think is the greatest player of all-time I am supposing you'd say Federer. You wouldn't pontificate and say Federer though Sampras, Borg, Agassi and Connors are up there as well would you? Similarly, if Federer is asked who his toughest opponent to beat in his career has been we all have a pretty good idea who that would be from a list containing Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Nadal and Djokovic.

Well Hewitt and Safin?
IIRC between 2003 and 2007 both these players only reached 2 Slam finals each- hardly a scary stat. Reaching 2 out of a possible 20 GS Finals doesn't show they are really troubling the top guns in the long term (in this period anyway).

Roddick? Well I think, if not for his serve, he would not have been top 20. His ground-strokes were poor and he isnt mentally strong (does he really believe himself in the key moments?) Fed just had to block the ball back into play and Roddick was toast.
Anyway in my mind Djokovic and Murray are better at returning serve than Federer.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Of course they are all great champions but at the end of the day some are greater than others. I mean if I were to ask you for who you think is the greatest player of all-time I am supposing you'd say Federer. You wouldn't pontificate and say Federer though Sampras, Borg, Agassi and Connors are up there as well would you? Similarly, if Federer is asked who his toughest opponent to beat in his career has been we all have a pretty good idea who that would be from a list containing Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Nadal and Djokovic.

I've always said Laver, Sampras, Federer in no particular order, with Borg and Nadal knocking on the door. I'm not sure it's possible to proclaim a GOAT, and don't really care that much about it. All I know is that my favourite players - Connors, Agassi and Henman - aren't GOAT candidates.

It Must Be Love wrote:Well Hewitt and Safin?
IIRC between 2003 and 2007 both these players only reached 2 Slam finals each- hardly a scary stat. Reaching 2 out of a possible 20 GS Finals doesn't show they are really troubling the top guns in the long term (in this period anyway).

Roddick? Well I think, if not for his serve, he would not have been top 20. His ground-strokes were poor and he isnt mentally strong (does he really believe himself in the key moments?) Fed just had to block the ball back into play and Roddick was toast.
Anyway in my mind Djokovic and Murray are better at returning serve than Federer.

Let's say a young player comes along and wins a calendar grand slam without losing a set. Then either gets injured or loses focus, or gets the yips on his serve and never reaches another final. Does he then get dismissed as 'not troubling the top guns in the long term'.
I think some posters are looking only at consistency and longevity and failing to appreciate the level these guys played at when at their best.
Re: Roddick. Well, Nadal, if not for his top-spin and luxilon strings etc. How many slams would Sampras have won without his serve, or Fed without his forehand. You can't just take away aspects of a player's game as though they don't exist - that's what I call 'dissing'.

Fair enough JHM but you know what I mean though. If Federer is asked who his toughest opponent in tennis has ever been and is tied down to one answer there is little doubt who that player would be.

Dominic Hbarty

CaledonianCraig wrote:Fair enough JHM but you know what I mean though. If Federer is asked who his toughest opponent in tennis has ever been and is tied down to one answer there is little doubt who that player would be.

Yeah, it would be Nadal. But ask Sampras the same question and he might well say Michael Stich - that's what he says in his book. That's because on an individual level it's about match-ups.
And as I've said before, tennis moves forward. The 2012 World No 1 will inevitably play at a better standard than the 2002 World No 1 and will thus prove a more difficult opponent to someone who plays both.

Though with the dearth of young talent in the game we may see something unusual in 2 or 3 years when Djoko and Nadal are past their best - with an overall fall in standands.

I think you're spot on lkv2

When asked the same question, I believe Rafa said Nikolay Davydenko

But in Nadal's case it is just not about match-ups though is it? Nadal has eleven slam wins to his name as well and that isn't purely because he is a good match-up to Federer as he has beaten others to win his slams. Yes I would agree tennis moves forward and agree things could change in two or three years time.

CC,

Federer may feel that Nadal didn't outplay him in a majority of their encounters compared with say a Hrbaty. Like JHM it is all about match-ups. It has been rare ocassions where Federer was blasted from the court by Nadal.

Take Nadal he may well say Soderling or Davydenko were his toughest opponents because they offered something different compared to Djokovic.

legendkillarV2 wrote:CC,

Federer may feel that Nadal didn't outplay him in a majority of their encounters compared with say a Hrbaty. Like JHM it is all about match-ups. It has been rare ocassions where Federer was blasted from the court by Nadal.

Take Nadal he may well say Soderling or Davydenko were his toughest opponents because they offered something different compared to Djokovic.

Shall we put it another way then? Who does he hold in higher esteem in terms of where they stand in greatness or however you want to term it - Dominic Hrbaty or Rafael Nadal? Likewise for Nadal - Davydenko or Federer?

CaledonianCraig wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:CC,

Federer may feel that Nadal didn't outplay him in a majority of their encounters compared with say a Hrbaty. Like JHM it is all about match-ups. It has been rare ocassions where Federer was blasted from the court by Nadal.

Take Nadal he may well say Soderling or Davydenko were his toughest opponents because they offered something different compared to Djokovic.

Shall we put it another way then? Who does he hold in higher esteem in terms of where they stand in greatness or however you want to term it - Dominic Hrbaty or Rafael Nadal? Likewise for Nadal - Davydenko or Federer?

The majority of top players like Federer recognise Nadal's standing with the greats past. But that doesn't make him his toughest opponent. Same with Nadal. He has always rated Federer the greatest of all time. He may well say that Davydenko was the ying to his yang.

Also when players comment on other players they are always complimentary no matter how wide the berth is in talent or achievements for that matter. Discussions of players achievements are always off court.

Put it this way CC Federer would not treat Hrbaty any differently to how he would Nadal on court. Same with Nadal with Davydenko.

By way of clarification .....in case a casual observer might read too much into the mention of Hrbaty.......

He played a total of just nine sets of tennis against Federer, winning four and losing five. Match-wise the "series" ended in Hrbaty's favour 2:1

He's 34, current ranking listed as 1,038

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Is Roger a specatacular champion who probably would be a dominant figure if not the dominant figure in any era?

No - he isn't dominating this era.

He dominated like no other from 04-07. Then age kicked in. He is now 30, and if you expect he should still be dominating now, you are much mistaken. I can't wait for Nadal and Djok to reach 28 and 29. let's see how they do, eh? Due to their games being based more on power and speed, I can assure you they are going to suffer far more than Federer has.

It really doesn't matter though because fans are happy to see him topping virtually every statistic known to tennis. Happy days.

Seifer Almasy wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Is Roger a specatacular champion who probably would be a dominant figure if not the dominant figure in any era?

No - he isn't dominating this era.

He dominated like no other from 04-07. Then age kicked in. He is now 30, and if you expect he should still be dominating now, you are much mistaken.

I more or less agree with you, that was pretty much the point I was making.
Djokovic, for example, started his domination in 2011, at which point Fed was 29.
Some posters argue that Fed's age was not a factor.
Some posters argue that Fed's age was the only factor.
The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, but exactly where is almost unknowable.

But if you want to explain away his domination purely ending due to old age that is very convenient don't you think? After all, he was aged 28 and a half when he won his last slam (to date). I'd say his dominating days came to an end earlier than that in say 2008/2009 when he was 26 to 27.

2003 Slam wins 1
2004 Slam wins 3
2005 Slam wins 2
2006 Slam wins 3
2007 Slam wins 3
2008 Slam wins 1
2009 Slam wins 2
2010 Slam wins 1
2011 Slam wins 0

The question that you have to ask is when was Federer at his peak at that time? Also when Nadal and Djokovic emerged then when were they at their peaks? To date I'd say they had their best years in 2010 (Nadal) and 2011 (Djokovic) so where it can be said Federer is not the player he was through age taking its toll now then a similar thing can be said for Nadal and Djokovic when they weren't dominant around 2006 and 2007 as they were yet to peak.

I think my brain's now hurting with all the talk (inc. some from me ....!!) of age, dominance, who peaked and when......

The one thing I do know for sure is that whatever battles a player might come through in his playing career, ultimately Father Time gets the better of everyone.

That's what happened to Sampras before Federer ; it's happening to Federer now ; and it will sure happen to the likes of Nadal, Djokovic et al after him .....

CC, I'm not saying his domination purely ended due to old age, but it has to be a significant factor, don't you think?

Additionally, it's not necessarily a matter of old age per se, but also how long it is possible to stay at the top of your game. Once you've been at the top of your game for 4 or 5 consecutive years, whether that starts when you're 17 or 23, that's pretty much the maximum anybody has ever been capable of, before the consistency level falls. Still capable of playing at your best (e.g. Sampras' final USO) but overall the level is lower.

For someone like Agassi it's totally different, as it's a series of peaks and troughs - less mileage, if you will. Even Rafa, with injuries has a few more ups and downs - even he has only won titles on clay in 2011-12.

It's unrealistic to say Player A's career trajectory followed this path, so why shouldn't Player B's?

In Fed's case 2004 - 2007 is more or less the 4 years at his peak, then disrupted by the bout of mono in early 2008. I don't think it's really possible for anyone to go on playing at their absolute peak for 5 or 6 consecutive years. And those 4 years, plus 2003 and 2008 put on a heck of a lot of mileage - it must take it's toll, mentally as much as physically.
Sampras had 6 consecutive YE No 1 rankings, but he really chased the last one, playing extra tournaments to stay close to Rios, then Rios pulled out of the deciding WTF.

What's disappointing to me is that there is no-one who looks even close to knocking Fed out of the top 4 or 5. There should be a whole bunch of players aged 20 - 24 really pressuring the 'older' generation.

Yes lags of course old age affects us all at some point that is not in dispute and it will happen to every player eventually but who knows what Nadal and Djokovic may have achieved by that time.

Of course wear and tear takes its toll lk and the way Nadal and Djokovic play the game then surely they will 'hit the wall' earlier than Federer then considering he plays a far morew energy conserving game so muscles etc don't take such a pounding.

As for no one pushing Federer out of the top 4 or 5 is that not just down to Federer still being very consistently good and winning tournaments along with those around him rather than those from say 5 to 10 in the rankings being poor in any way which they aren't.

I'm sure I read somewhere that worldwide tennis TV audiences are currently at an all-time high, and even here in 'ole England total attendance at the 2011 WTF week were I think a record for any indoor tourney ever. People obviously like what's on offer at the moment (despite high ticket prices .... )

But on JHM's point about the ongoing lack of more youthful breakthrough talent to pressure the 'older' generation, I'd say that unless that is somehow corrected within the next 2/3 years then the climbing audiences could well begin to fall - and perhaps significantly so......

But like I said lags is it because the likes of Nadal, Federer and Djokovic are playing at such a high-level at the moment that others can't compete (hence the popular viewing figures). Remember the players you are asking youngsters to compete with are Roger Federer (widely regarded as the greatest player of all-time), Rafael Nadal (widely regarded as the greatest clay-courter of all-time) and Novak Djokovic who has won four of the last five slams played. Some ask?

So who are the younger generation pressuring Tsonga, Ferrer, Berdych etc?
Or even pressuring Monaco, Monfils and Verdasco in the rankings?

Yep, very true CC.

Matching such a strong trio is one thing (and it's sure 'some ask' as you say). But even pressing them hard just now & then would be a good start, I think you would agree ......

As JHM points out even the second and third 'tiers' aren't exactly in danger of being pushed aside by new kids on the block.

Well Raonic is rising up the rankings fairly swiftly and Bernard Tomic is another but what must be remembered as well is that players are now widely regarded as later developers. Whereas you had the likes of Boris Becker winning slams as a teenager I think those days are now gone. I think the point of who is pressing the top seeds or even top ten can be countered both ways. Is it because they are so high quality that others can't infiltrate or is it because the youngsters are so poor? That is another argument but one thing is sure the quality at the top can't be questioned and it must be remembered that the likes of Tsonga, Berdych and Del Potro have had big wins against the top players in slams so shows they are no mugs.

I do like Tomic's style of play, although obviously it's a work in progress.

Good new article on him here http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/DEUCE-Tennis/DEUCE-Roland-Garros-Wimbledon-2012/Bernard-Tomic.aspx

A number of retired legends have commented that it's just too tough and physically demanding today to expect teenagers to have very early success in the way that Becker did. The very young guys need time to build body strength before they can consistently challenge the top four, and even top 20

C'mon CC, are you really saying that, say, Janko Tipsarevic, at age 27 and a career high of 8 is now such a good player that no-one under the age of 23 could possibly get near him in the rankings?

He is consistent. True he doesn't have stand out wins in his career a la Tsonga , Berdych and Del Potro but he is consistent at tournaments. If you are judging him against the very best players the sport has produced then he will look ordinary but I am sure we could go back through time and pluck players out of the top tens and question their being there...it happens. Besides who is to say what will happen in the coming months as it isn't inconceivable that Raonic could displace him from the top ten.

JuliusHMarx wrote:C'mon CC, are you really saying that, say, Janko Tipsarevic, at age 27 and a career high of 8 is now such a good player that no-one under the age of 23 could possibly get near him in the rankings?

This is spot on.

I am fed up of the excuses made that the top 3 are some kind of amazing standard that youth can't break through when the truth is exposed by looking at Tipsy, or Ferrer.

The fact for all the desperate media ramping is that Federer is far below his peak and there's so little talent coming through that a guy like Tipsarovic can make his career high ranking at the age of 28 (his birthday is tomorrow, Julius, so I'm calling him 28 for the purpose of this post - it'll be correct bny tomorrow anyway )

Well come on bogbrush - Federer 16 slams, Nadal 11 slams, Djokovic 5 slams. Seems like an amazing standard to me. If not what would you call it?

As lags points out in his post at 1.31 it explains why the top players now are older than say the average was five to ten years ago. Tipsarevic is very consistent but doesn't have the tools to crack the big guns is that really such a crime?

Age is clearly an important factor, the simplest way of seeing this clearly is seeing how many slams each of the top 3 won at their respective ages:

Age Fed Nad Djoko
22 - 1 - 2 - 0
23 - 3 - 1 - 0
24 - 2 - 3 - 3
25 - 3 - 1 - (1)
26 - 3 - (1)
27 - 1
28 - 2

(source Wikipedia - Federer Nadal rivalry - career evolution)

Just looking at this, Fed's slam haul was mainly achieved between the ages of 23 to 26 years old when he won 11 of his slams. For Nadal, he started a year younger (when he started to dominate) at 22 but he's been less dominant at the slams. However, from the ages of 22 to 25 years old he still won more than half his slams, 6 and he may add more this year because he's still 26, so perhaps 2011 can be considered a blip? Then again, 2008 could be considered a blip for Fed because in 2009 he made all the slam finals and won 2 of them. Djokovic started later but like the other two, has won more slams at 24 & 25 years old than when he was younger while he may add more because he is still 25.

What we can see from above is that all 3 players converge around the age of 24, two start younger but by 24 dominance is apparent for all of them. As Djokovic and Nadal have still got some years to go before we have a full set of data to analyse, we can only say that age is certainly a factor in winning slams, so JHM is quite right to say it matters. The main reason Nadal is in contention to catch Fed's slam haul is not because he's as dominant at the slams as Federer was but because he started winning them younger (at RG). However, those blips where he won just the one slam (2009 & 2011) is the reason why he's not ahead of Fed's slam haul anymore.

As age is a factor, the question is how much of a factor is it. Given that all 3 of them won 8 slams in total when they were all 24, we can expect Nadal and Djokovic to remain in contention for all the slams for the next 2-3 years at least. Whether the bigger reason for why Federer was more dominant when he won so many slams between 23 to 26 years of age is due to less competition or not is semantics as it's down to your own personal viewpoint. Tennis pundits and at least the tabloid media here in the UK have a vested interested in talking about the level of competition being intense because it increases interest and no doubt revenue (directly and indirectly).

Well perhaps the likes of Nadal, Djokovic and yes even Murray's meteoric rise at the rankings at such pace around the mid to late-2000's demonstrates the comparative strength of the top players around that time that they made it so quick compared to the youngsters of today that can't make inroads. However, it is statistically factual that the average age of the players peaking is older than it was so perhaps we need to wait two or three years before we see the best of Raonic and Tomic etc?

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well perhaps the likes of Nadal, Djokovic and yes even Murray's meteoric rise at the rankings at such pace around the mid to late-2000's demonstrates the comparative strength of the top players around that time that they made it so quick compared to the youngsters of today that can't make inroads. However, it is statistically factual that the average age of the players peaking is older than it was so perhaps we need to wait two or three years before we see the best of Raonic and Tomic etc?

I'd agree with that, it would certainly appear that we'd not expect them (Raonic & Tomic) to dominate the tennis circuit until around 23/24, or if they're a phenomenal talent, 22 years old like Nadal. Although if they were going to win more than just the single slam, you might expect them to win at least one slam at at a younger age, but not all players do, Federer didn't.

It is not inconceivable though that you may have a few years to wait once Nadal and Djokovic fade from the scene for the next really big talent comes along and may not even be the likes of Raonic or Tomic.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Tipsarevic is very consistent but doesn't have the tools to crack the big guns is that really such a crime?

It's not about Tipsarevic vs those above him. It's about why no-one (or very few) under the age of 23 can get anywhere near Tipsy. I personally don't believe that all the 20 -23 year olds need to develop so much more physically (i.e. get to 24 or 25) before they can come up to Tipsy's standard. It's more that there seems to be a dearth of talent in that age group, with a very few, but very welcome exceptions.