Thoughts on mens' quarters

First topic message reminder :

So, we finally get to the quarter-finals, with all top 4 seeds safely through. Arguably Ferrer has been the most impressive, but arguably he's the least likely to win the tournament. Djokovic has had some shaky moments but finished his matches strongly. Nadal stepped it up against Nishikori but still hasn't hit top form. Ferrer has been v impressive, and Federer has been a bit hot and cold - the best that can be said about the Simon match was at least the 5 sets were over relatively quickly.

Djokovic v Haas. Haas' great year continues, and he was v impressive in crushing Youzhny in straights after that epic win over Isner. Haas has a complete all-court game which if executed well could trouble Djokovic, as we've seen earlier this year. My heart says Haas in 4, but my head says Djokovic to prevail in 4, after a tricky start.

Nadal v Wawrinka. Great to see Wawrinka finally maintaining his form through slam tournaments. Nadal has looked vulnerable at times and Stan will really go for it here. I think this could be a great match and it may even go the distance, but I don't think the Swiss is consistent enough over 5 sets to beat Nadal. Nadal in 5 sets.

Ferrer v Robredo. I'm glad that the media have picked up on Robredo's consecutive 5 set comebacks, but Ferrer will be a step too far. Mentally and physically, Robredo will be too shattered to last the pace in this one. This will be the most one-sided quarter-final - Ferrer in 3 fairly straightforward sets.

Federer v Tsonga. Tsonga has really impressed me this tournament - some great defensive tennis to back up his attacking prowess, and he really seems to have sharpened up the tactical side of his game. Federer's form has been hard to judge - great in patches but sloppy at other times. Although this is clay, the serve will be vital, and Tsonga is serving better than Federer at the moment. I'll say Tsonga in 5 sets.

Looks like a comment from about 2007 homogenised.

Nadal reached the Wimbledon and US finals in 2010 and 2011, and on the four occassions Federer didn't manage to get far enough to face him, losing in semis or quarters.

I do agree with you about homogenisation though, would like to see W and US speeded up, and a few hard court masters.

Henman Bill wrote:
Nadal reached the Wimbledon and US finals in 2010 and 2011, and on the four occassions Federer didn't manage to get far enough to face him, losing in semis or quarters.

Exceptions don't make rules, and Federer was past his peak in 2010-11. Where will Nadal be when he is 29-31? I doubt he will be competing for Slams.

Nadal was still to meet his peak 2004-2007, you ask where will Nadal be 29-31, do you want to know where Federer was 18-21?

kingraf wrote:... And then took seven months off.. you probably dont think the two events are in any way interlinked. His last Slam victory over Nadal came in 2007. Over a 21-year old, since then he is 4-12 against him. Funny how Feds best seemed to dissapear just as the rest of the guys matured. They say the same thing about Tyson, but he went to jail, so it could be true. Federer, according to some, simply lost it.

It's not funny, it's just the way it happened, due to the age difference.
Fed would always (until recent years) go into Wimby/AO/USO as the favourite to win, even if he wasn't the favourite should then he meet Nadal at some point. That's because a) Nadal would be more liklely to lose to a number of other players and b) tennis isn't about H2H's, it's about winning the tournament.

Federer got past a 21-year old 101mph first serve Nadal by the skin of his teeth in Wimbledon. Then he lost the 105mph first serve Nadal at Wimbledon. Even if Federer was still at his peak, you surely understand why I dont see him beating the 115mph first serve Nadal over five sets, no¿

Well done on turning a RG 2013 quarters thread into a Federer / Nadal war zone, kingraf.

BB, that wasnt even my intention!! Homogenised took a sarcastic comment I made about Djokovic vs Haas, then I replied with another sarcastic comment I made about how Im expected to believe Federer has a chance at beating Nadal over five sets having not done it since 2007, while the Haas-Djokovic match was 2009, yet it cant be taken into consideration. Suddenly a Semi thread becomes a Fedal thread!

But otherwise thank you. Im always trying to turn every thread into a Fedal thread. Just always looking someone to pull the rope.

trigger not rope, midnight typing does not agree with me.

kingraf wrote:Federer got past a 21-year old 101mph first serve Nadal by the skin of his teeth in Wimbledon. Then he lost the 105mph first serve Nadal at Wimbledon. Even if Federer was still at his peak, you surely understand why I dont see him beating the 115mph first serve Nadal over five sets, no¿

Are you seriously trying to say that 1 result proves a consensus? Or that Nadal is better than Federer on grass? You can't judge this on a few mph and say that proves an entire argument. Since when has a few mph on a serve been any kind of measurement of who will win? You CANNOT BE SERIOUS! Nadal lost twice against Federer at Wimbledon in Fed's best years, and won in one of his weakest. It's 2-1 Fed whichever way you spin it, and had they met there more times, I am pretty sure the greatest grass court player of all time would have extended his lead over Nadal, bad match up or not.

I sense that you are one of those fans that grasp at straws to prove one player is better than another. One H2H isn't going to do that.

The Nadal Federer faced in Wimbledon 2006-7 was not prime Nadal. Easy as that. Again what was Federer doing 2001-2? Winning 250s? A Masters here? If you think that Nadal was peak during those matches, then obviously we are coming at this from two different junctions. I never said Nadal is a better grass player than Federer, what I said is that I dont see him beating Nadal over five sets peak vs peak. Why? Match ups. Styles make fights. Sampras was 4-6 vs Kraijcek, does that make him inferior? No, but it does mean when they line up and the stars align just right Pete's best normally wont do it vs Richie's. Thats how match ups work. Tennis is a 100m dash whereby everyone is chasing one finish line. Its more like boxing, where every fighter is different, and thus one All time great may struggle against a lesser player, even if he is the "greater" of the two. Ali lost to Norton who lost to Foreman who lost to Ali. Is Norton a greater fighter than Ali? No. Ali is a three time world champ, Norton got gifted a title. But you can be sure that in a fight between the two, the smart money is on Norton. Same with this rivalry

It's 2-1 Fed at Wimbledon, and that's a fact you will have to live with. It's also a fact that Nadal got beat in his prime by a rank 100 there as well. If Federer can beat Nadal twice at Wimbledon, he can beat him 10 times. All this is missing is a large number of matches being played together. Not Fed's fault that Rosol sorted him out last year.

I wonder what the excuse is for the 4-0 indoor h2h to fed? or the Tour Finals? Let me guess.... Nadal was not fit.

No, never mentioned that, & I dare you to find a thread where I said that. Ever!

bogbrush wrote:Well done on turning a RG 2013 quarters thread into a Federer / Nadal war zone, kingraf.

Well said. Quite why Federer needed to be brought into it yet again is beyond me, no need for it.

I foresee danger for Novak tomorrow, just have a feeling about Haas. He's striking the ball beautifully. I think it'll be a very high quality match!

socal1976 wrote:
I don't know about all that, Novak handles the high ball on his backhand about as well as anyone I see on tour and off of clay as well. The man has beaten Nadal in three clay court finals, if he had problems with the high ball on the backhand that wouldn't be happening. Federer has played a lot more matches on the clay than Djokovic. By the time it is said and done I would not be surprised if Djokovic is more heralded and accomplished on clay than Federer. His western forehand likes the ball up, and he handles the high ball on the backhand exceptionally well. His game is more naturally suited to clay than Fed's game. Either way I think Novak already has more masters titles on clay than Roger has or they are even, not sure, and he still has some time to go. But I don't see fed's game to be better suited to clay, and I disagree with the highball on the backhand being a problem. Novak is a great high ball hitter, if anything the lower ball gives him problems.

Federer has been to five French Open Finals. He's won the event in Hamburg four times on clay - which was a Masters event every year he won it. He's won twice in Madrid on clay also. On top of that, Federer has been runner up to Nadal in seven other clay Finals in his career. That's 18 Finals on clay at either the Masters or Majors level in his career. This is far better than anything Djokovic has accomplished on clay. Period. Djokovic has managed but 1 French Final, last year. He's lost to Nadal 4 times there (having taken but 1 set in their four matches); he's lost to Federer there, and he's lost at RG to guys like Kohlschreiber and Melzer - and in the latter he was leading 2 Sets to Love and lost it in five sets. Not to mention barely escaping last year to Seppi, and even more so to Tsonga - who held Match Points against him. So when I say he's got a bit more struggle on his Backhand on clay relative to a hard court, it's not rocket science to understand it. Results like this prove it. I didn't say his Backhand was bad, just less effective. Djokovic may have beaten Nadal in 3 clay matches, but he's lost to Nadal on clay the other 13 times they've played on it (Djokovic is 3-3 vs. Federer on clay). It is the Djokovic Backhand that Nadal always goes to - because it's won him 13 of their 16 matches on clay. Including all three of them last year. As I said, at RG vs. Nadal, Djokovic got one set in four years, in last year's Final. And when did he get it? In the 3rd Set when the rain was falling, deadening the court and neutralizing the Nadal bounce off the court. Djokovic was able to take his shots at waist level by that stage, rather than the shoulder or higher. It was exactly what he needed - and he ripped off 8 games in a row. When they resumed the next day Djokovic started serving with a break in hand at 2-1. All he had to do was hold his Serve the rest of the way and the 4th set would have been his. But he ended up getting broken twice, and never breaking Nadal's serve. I submit to you that the higher bounce returned on the Monday - making it harder for Djokovic to batter Nadal continuously, like he can on hard courts. Djokovic's Backhand is more susceptible to breakdown on clay than it is on a hard court. There's no disputing that.

Federer is 4-0 because that surface suits him better, but more importantly its indoors, so the ball flies through better. You assert that Federer would be the favourite to face Nadal in AO, and USO, (outdoor hard) yet Nadal leads that equation 6-2. Or was Federer unfit for that? Nadal never gets any credit for his Federer wins - 2004, Fed was nursing an injury, 2005, Fed (at 24) wasnt ready for clay, 2006, he had an off day, 2008, Mono. 2009, he was too nervous to win. 2011- onwards, he is too old. Yet on the rare occassion he beats Nadal, "See, this is what he can do when steps up". While every other day, he apparently has some sort of physical or mental frailty stopping him.

kingraf wrote:Federer is 4-0 because that surface suits him better, but more importantly its indoors, so the ball flies through better. You assert that Federer would be the favourite to face Nadal in AO, and USO, (outdoor hard) yet Nadal leads that equation 6-2. Or was Federer unfit for that? Nadal never gets any credit for his Federer wins - 2004, Fed was nursing an injury, 2005, Fed (at 24) wasnt ready for clay, 2006, he had an off day, 2008, Mono. 2009, he was too nervous to win. 2011- onwards, he is too old. Yet on the rare occassion he beats Nadal, "See, this is what he can do when steps up". While every other day, he apparently has some sort of physical or mental frailty stopping him.

No. I did not say that. I said Aussie is 50/50. I would have it Aussie 50/50, French Open 10/90, Wimbledon 60/40, US Open 70/30. In Fed's prime this would probably be around 70/30 Aussie, 20/80 French, 80/20 Wimbledon, 80/20 US

But Nadal was not good enough to reach the latter stages, so it's a moot point. Do you comprehend that? He wasn't good enough to meet Fed on Fed's best surfaces, while Fed WAS good enough to meet Nadal on his. Simple. Fed's best years were 2004-7, and 2006 IS the greatest year for any Tennis player in the modern era by success at all events.

Jeez kingraf I'm surprised to see you trotting out all the old h2h2 stats when everyone knows the name of the game is winning titles, not beating one specific player. And if you seriously believe Nadal "never gets any credit for his Federer wins" then you must be living in a parallel world.

How quickly (and how disappointing) you managed to turn a perfectly balanced article into the same tiresome Fedal stuff that so often blighted the old 606.

Im rejoining the thread, it dawned on me that I was suckered into an argument. Although even in this argument I discussion I am saddened as the weather topic is being brought back again. Despite me having been told by all & sundry that the weather doesnt have "shet" to do with the result of a Djokovic match. Bogbrush might ask me what my point is... And I have none, really, it just really frustrates me as a person when something I said six weeks ago which got rubbished is now the gospel truth.

In fact it almost feels like a personal attack on me and my knowledge as a poster: from Socal - " That Djokovic would have beaten any Nadal on
any given surface and conditions on that given
day period."

Emancipator - "Dry clay? You mean like Rome and Madrid in
2011.
If Novak plays his best he wins regardless of the
surface. However even a small drop in novaks
level and rafa grinds out a win"

Danny 1982 - Kingraf - "It's ridiculous to blame conditions for
a defeat, especially in a match where the
conditions are relatively normal"

johnnyjeep - "So let me get this straight, Nadal goes
from being the king of clay to the king
of dry clay at sea level?
I promise
But i'm glad I'm not the only one who
is reading it like this lol"

IC intimating that Im a fanboy - "Welcome to the world of Fanboyism if you are
already not a part of it"

Now, of course, not only is the weather a factor, like I said, according to some it might be thee factor. I think I just need time away from this section of 606v2, will spend the next week or so hiding out in the boxing, basketball, and News section. See you all after Wimbledon

©Kingraf (thats how you declare youre taking time out)

lags, like I said, the other guy took a sentence I wrote with regards to Djokovic vs Haas and this whole thing spiralled. The tennis section can be really stressful, sometimes. Pity, as its the place most of my tennis shorts (stories) come from for work purposes.

_homogenised_ wrote:

kingraf wrote:Federer is 4-0 because that surface suits him better, but more importantly its indoors, so the ball flies through better. You assert that Federer would be the favourite to face Nadal in AO, and USO, (outdoor hard) yet Nadal leads that equation 6-2. Or was Federer unfit for that? Nadal never gets any credit for his Federer wins - 2004, Fed was nursing an injury, 2005, Fed (at 24) wasnt ready for clay, 2006, he had an off day, 2008, Mono. 2009, he was too nervous to win. 2011- onwards, he is too old. Yet on the rare occassion he beats Nadal, "See, this is what he can do when steps up". While every other day, he apparently has some sort of physical or mental frailty stopping him.

No. I did not say that. I said Aussie is 50/50. I would have it Aussie 50/50, French Open 10/90, Wimbledon 60/40, US Open 70/30. In Fed's prime this would probably be around 70/30 Aussie, 20/80 French, 80/20 Wimbledon, 80/20 US

But Nadal was not good enough to reach the latter stages, so it's a moot point. Do you comprehend that? He wasn't good enough to meet Fed on Fed's best surfaces, while Fed WAS good enough to meet Nadal on his. Simple. Fed's best years were 2004-7, and 2006 IS the greatest year for any Tennis player in the modern era by success at all events.

With both players in their prime, I would have it something like (Federer first) 40/60 Oz, 10/90 RG, 50/50 Wim and 60/40 US Open. Can't ignore the fact they played in their prime in Australia (in my view twice) and Rafa won both.

kingraf wrote:The tennis section can be really stressful, sometimes.

Chill, man. Rafa fans are certainly a relatively small minority here, so it would be a shame if you disappeared.

Two down, two to go. With my usual eye on SHBHs, I sadly note that probably the only one with a realistic chance to advance lost today. I would not like anything better than a Wawrinka vs Haas semi, but how realistic is that?

I do not think either Haas or Stan will win tomorrow but both have been playing so well so far this season that I am quite interested in seeing if they can at least make some inroads tomorrow.

Haas has shown in the past that he can trouble Nole, and he has a pretty good slice that Nole does not really like playing against, but I still expect Nole to go through in no more than 4 sets.

Wawrinka has never had any success against Rafa but I still think that he has improved so much this year (perhaps more in the confidence department than anywhere else) that I think he can perhaps do better this time - at least as long as he has enough in the tank after his Gasquet match. Nevertheless, similarly to the other QF, I expect Rafa to win in at most 4 sets.

Would like to be wrong.

Born Slippy wrote:

_homogenised_ wrote:

kingraf wrote:Federer is 4-0 because that surface suits him better, but more importantly its indoors, so the ball flies through better. You assert that Federer would be the favourite to face Nadal in AO, and USO, (outdoor hard) yet Nadal leads that equation 6-2. Or was Federer unfit for that? Nadal never gets any credit for his Federer wins - 2004, Fed was nursing an injury, 2005, Fed (at 24) wasnt ready for clay, 2006, he had an off day, 2008, Mono. 2009, he was too nervous to win. 2011- onwards, he is too old. Yet on the rare occassion he beats Nadal, "See, this is what he can do when steps up". While every other day, he apparently has some sort of physical or mental frailty stopping him.

No. I did not say that. I said Aussie is 50/50. I would have it Aussie 50/50, French Open 10/90, Wimbledon 60/40, US Open 70/30. In Fed's prime this would probably be around 70/30 Aussie, 20/80 French, 80/20 Wimbledon, 80/20 US

But Nadal was not good enough to reach the latter stages, so it's a moot point. Do you comprehend that? He wasn't good enough to meet Fed on Fed's best surfaces, while Fed WAS good enough to meet Nadal on his. Simple. Fed's best years were 2004-7, and 2006 IS the greatest year for any Tennis player in the modern era by success at all events.

With both players in their prime, I would have it something like (Federer first) 40/60 Oz, 10/90 RG, 50/50 Wim and 60/40 US Open. Can't ignore the fact they played in their prime in Australia (in my view twice) and Rafa won both.

Do you really think Roger was at prime in 2012?

Jeez, he must have had the longest prime of any player in history.

I'd love to re-visit these discussions when we see prime Murray in 2017.

Besides there is a difference between prime and peak. Roger's peak was 2006.

Warwinka will lose in three easy sets.

Haas could cause an upset.

kingraf. Don't get stressed! (and don't make yourself watch boxing as that sounds like a harsh self punishment) But you have to understand having the view that Nadal is quite a good tennis player is seen as highly controversial here on 606v2. It upsets people in the same way as saying the earth is spherical way back when. But just like an early days member of the round earth society you have facts on your side...

Haas has been playing top 5 tennis recently only problem is he hasn't yet to play a really fast defensive player, he played big hitters instead. He has beaten Novak before though, he really needs to start strong.

The only thing in Haas favour is its going to be hotter today so the balls will fly more. But it works both ways, and they'll rear up onto his SHBH more. Haas will lose in straights, may even take a trip to the bakery for a baguette.

Wawrinka is a clay beast and can fire great shots. But likewise I expect Nadal to raise his game another 2 levels and move/thump Stan all over the park in straights.

I'd agree with much of your prediction lydian. However, I wouldn't rule out Haas winning a set.

Don't see Stan troubling Nadal, however well the former has been playing - he would need to make a very quick start and I don't see him relaxing straight into the match.

Tommy is looking very dangerous - of course expect Djokovic to come through, but Haas is pure class and has to be playing with no pressure from expectation (ours) at all. The old legs will have been helped by a very quickly completed match/work out against Youzny.

Torn on that one - love to see Djokovic bid for a RG title, but how fab to see Tommy come through, and what hours of fun we could all look forward to on here!!

antonico wrote:Federer has been to five French Open Finals. He's won the event in Hamburg four times on clay - which was a Masters event every year he won it. He's won twice in Madrid on clay also. On top of that, Federer has been runner up to Nadal in seven other clay Finals in his career. That's 18 Finals on clay at either the Masters or Majors level in his career. This is far better than anything Djokovic has accomplished on clay. Period.

This is a bit odd.

Socal's point was "By the time it is said and done I would not be surprised if Djokovic is more heralded and accomplished on clay than Federer."

So you counter by presenting what Federer has achieved to date including his more years as player.

Djokovic has just turned 26. He has made:
1 FO Final
8 Masters finals, winning 4 of them.

At the same age, Federer had made:
2 FO Final
8 Masters finals, winning 4 of them.

They're virtually identical records! In fact, if Novak wins two more matches, they will be indentical! If Novak wins 3 more matches, his record is better!

I don't think it's crazy to suggest to that Novak may end up with a better clay record.

Period.

Nice stats HMM.
The question is will Novak have less clay competition in the future than Federer had through much of his career?

I would love to see Tommy win, his brand of tennis is a joy to watch...he may well take the first set if on fire but I see Djokovic coming back strongly and the final set will be a breadstick once Tommy's geriatric legs have gone on a hotter day. Djokovic says he's now also driven by the higher Gencic purpose too...

Good work HMM

I do get irritated with posters who do comparisons that lack relativity

As usual we see just how under-rated Novak is as a Champion and how much respect he lacks on these boards

emancipator wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:

_homogenised_ wrote:

kingraf wrote:Federer is 4-0 because that surface suits him better, but more importantly its indoors, so the ball flies through better. You assert that Federer would be the favourite to face Nadal in AO, and USO, (outdoor hard) yet Nadal leads that equation 6-2. Or was Federer unfit for that? Nadal never gets any credit for his Federer wins - 2004, Fed was nursing an injury, 2005, Fed (at 24) wasnt ready for clay, 2006, he had an off day, 2008, Mono. 2009, he was too nervous to win. 2011- onwards, he is too old. Yet on the rare occassion he beats Nadal, "See, this is what he can do when steps up". While every other day, he apparently has some sort of physical or mental frailty stopping him.

No. I did not say that. I said Aussie is 50/50. I would have it Aussie 50/50, French Open 10/90, Wimbledon 60/40, US Open 70/30. In Fed's prime this would probably be around 70/30 Aussie, 20/80 French, 80/20 Wimbledon, 80/20 US

But Nadal was not good enough to reach the latter stages, so it's a moot point. Do you comprehend that? He wasn't good enough to meet Fed on Fed's best surfaces, while Fed WAS good enough to meet Nadal on his. Simple. Fed's best years were 2004-7, and 2006 IS the greatest year for any Tennis player in the modern era by success at all events.

With both players in their prime, I would have it something like (Federer first) 40/60 Oz, 10/90 RG, 50/50 Wim and 60/40 US Open. Can't ignore the fact they played in their prime in Australia (in my view twice) and Rafa won both.

Do you really think Roger was at prime in 2012?

Jeez, he must have had the longest prime of any player in history.

I'd love to re-visit these discussions when we see prime Murray in 2017.

Besides there is a difference between prime and peak. Roger's peak was 2006.

This is true.

I became very tired of hearing some (I'm particularly looking at you, Craig) endlessly trying to ramp 2011/2 Federer as being "at his peak", despite ample evidence to the contrary. This reached fever pitch when he beat Djokovic and Murray at Wimbledon and regained the #1 spot of course, but subsequent events have shown this to be rank folly (I also remember some efforts to put his recovery of #1 to Rafa's absence, when in fact Nadal would have had to win Wimbledon 2013 to have prevented this; there were no previous impediments to Rafa during the year Roger accumulated his ranking points).

For a touch of therapy yesterday evening I dialled up some archive matches from Federers peak years (I looked at a few matches from 2006) and it was like looking at a different player; the speed, the staggering footwork, always perfectly in position, and the liquid power that came from it, and then I contrasted with the leaden effort yesterday, feet so often failing to take him to optimum position, and the lack of power (put down to obsolete equipment yesterday, but not true as he wasn't using more advanced equipment when he was able to thunder it from deep). He's at some ridiculously depressed level from peak, and there's no way that decline could have only begun 11 months ago. In my opinion, he was never the same after Australia 2008; forget the top boys, his struggles against the field have become steadily more pronounced.

Oh there's no doubt the guy has slipped down with his speed and agility. We could have the same discussion about Sampras after 2000, or Agassi after 2003, or McEnroe after 1985. Are you blaming his decline on mono at AO'08? Many would argue 08+ was also the rise of the other top 3 into something like prime territory.

For the record - I'm not saying his racquet is the ONLY issue, nor was it an issue in 2006 when many other guys were also using older tech too. But it is an issue now if he wants to compensate the lack of power he's getting from loss of timing through poor positioning. Can I also say that I don't think he's putting the hard yards of conditioning work in anymore too...he looked to me like he has a few lbs of weight around his stomach, ok he's lean by anyone standards but he doesn't look at fit as he used to do and those arms are getting "spindlier" by the week. Compare him to Haas who still looks very strong indeed. Perhaps he just doesn't have the motivation to gruel it out in the gym anymore - these things also affect his speed and lead to poor positioning/shanking/power loss.

I hear where you're coming from BB - its not nice to have the reality of your guys best days being firmly behind him further reinforced by losses to people who likely wouldn't take a set off them in prime. That's the game we love I'm afraid...and he had it pretty good for a long time. The question becomes how long he's prepared to keep having these losses despite his desire to go onto Rio 2016. His career is very different to Haas'.

bogbrush wrote:I became very tired of hearing some (I'm particularly looking at you, Craig) endlessly trying to ramp 2011/2 Federer as being "at his peak", despite ample evidence to the contrary. This reached fever pitch when he beat Djokovic and Murray at Wimbledon and regained the #1 spot of course, but subsequent events have shown this to be rank folly

CC can speak for themselves - but I remember laughing at people stating after his Wimbledon win, that this was 'Roger at his best'. Yes, it was Roger at his best for an hour - but I argued quite vociferously that we would never see the 2004/5 Federer again

BB, it was mainly the non-grounded Federer fans who were getting their knickers wet - the type who think coming through 5 sets against Simon shows he's still got it, simply because he's often won in 5 sets

For the record, for me Roger was at the height of his powers in 2004/5 where I think nobody in the history of Tennis could have lived with him. There was then a slight decline, followed by a steeper one around 2010 - recovery last year to 2008 levels. This obviously took it's toll

When the speed starts to go I actually look to loss of motivation at gym-work rather than innate loss of foot-speed.
The reality check is that many 100m sprinters didnt reach their speed prime until their early 30s.
Linford Christie set his career best 100m time of 9.87 at the grand old age of 33 years and 4 months. That's nearly 18 months older than Federer is now.
Carl Lewis set his speed and long jump records at 30 yrs old...and maintained similar performances for a long time afterwards.
Frankie Fredericks set his best indoor 50m sprint time at 35 years old.
Michael Johnson set his 400m WR of 43,19 at age 32.
At the other end of the spectrum, most of Haile Gebrselassie's long distance records have also been set in his 30s inc. marathon record at 35 years.

If you're prepared to put the hard gym and running work in then outright fitness and speed decline doesn't happen until late 30s.

Speed is all about fast-twitch muscle density. To maintain that density and explosive speed you simply have to put the hard yards of gym work in. Because of this I simply don't believe Federer is putting in the high level effort needed anymore. Indeed, as I said above it looks to me like he's carrying a little bit more weight around his midriff (relatively), or at best he doesn't look to have as strong a core as he used to. This means loss of rotational strength on his BH, less back support for serving and if his fast-twitch density is declining so will his speed.

The tennis skills are still there in abundance as that ridiculous CC BH pass at BP showed. I just think his motivation and fitness-grind is seriously on the wane...that's the true killer of these tennis greats.

lydian wrote:When the speed starts to go I actually look to loss of motivation at gym-work rather than innate loss of foot-speed.
The reality check is that many 100m sprinters didnt reach their speed prime until their early 30s.
Linford Christie set his career best 100m time of 9.87 at the grand old age of 33 years and 4 months. That's nearly 18 months older than Federer is now.
Carl Lewis set his speed and long jump records at 30 yrs old...and maintained similar performances for a long time afterwards.
Frankie Fredericks set his best indoor 50m sprint time at 35 years old.
Michael Johnson set his 400m WR of 43,19 at age 32.
At the other end of the spectrum, most of Haile Gebrselassie's long distance records have also been set in his 30s inc. marathon record at 35 years.

If you're prepared to put the hard gym and running work in then outright fitness and speed decline doesn't happen until late 30s.

Speed is all about fast-twitch muscle density. To maintain that density and explosive speed you simply have to put the hard yards of gym work in. Because of this I simply don't believe Federer is putting in the high level effort needed anymore. Indeed, as I said above it looks to me like he's carrying a little bit more weight around his midriff (relatively), or at best he doesn't look to have as strong a core as he used to. This means loss of rotational strength on his BH, less back support for serving and if his fast-twitch density is declining so will his speed.

The tennis skills are still there in abundance as that ridiculous CC BH pass at BP showed. I just think his motivation and fitness-grind is seriously on the wane...that's the true killer of these tennis greats.

You've made the catastrophic error of comparing a 100m sprint to tennis. They are like chalk and cheese. Tennis has a completely different intensity, works more muscles, uses different muscles, and has a completely different motion to sprinting. It is also much more reliant on footwork prowess, and as you get into your 30s, you lose fine tuned hand-eye coordination and spacial awareness. You cannot compare them fairly in the slightest. Tennis is completely different to sprinting, and to all other sports.

It is a biological fact that you physically start to waste (muscle tissue) well before you hit 30. And then you have this

Prime years physically are usually between 21 and 26. After that it is down hill fast.

lydian wrote:Nice stats HMM.
The question is will Novak have less clay competition in the future than Federer had through much of his career?

Well, at present, it's the same guy!

The advantage is that as age starts to creep up on Novak, his rival is a year older and presumably will be going through the same (if not more).

Poor Roger had to face his decline as his rival went from strength to strength!

I wouldn't be surprised if clay was the surface on which Novak had the greatest longevity. Much of his game, from his grip to his sliding seems to lend itself to that surface.

Will he match Federer's clay achievements? Tough to say. My hunch is that they will be broadly comparable but who knows?!

Homogenised, that's why I threw in long-jump, that is also an agility based event, as is hurdling which uses multiple muscle groups and needs fast timing as well...Ed Moses still won 400m hurdles World Champ Gold in 1987 at age 32 in 47.46s, a time that no-one but him had beat and still top 15 today.

I'm not saying they are the same sports but the point is that outright speed doesn't dwindle in your late 20s. If its analogous to sprinting, its analogous to any athletic sport. Outright muscle reaction and hand-eye co-ordination times don't dwindle until later in your 30s either. Steve Davis was still winning Snooker World Champs at 32 yo - his hand-eye was ok.

Isnt it easier to simply look at injury, comebacks and motivational wane as the chief cause of most tennis player's decline? After many years of long grind they lose the fire in the belly to keep working as hard as they used to. The only guy who was different is Agassi - he worked tremendously hard in the gym up to 2003/2004 and look at his results. His hand-eye co-ordination never went. I suspect Haas is working really hard in the gym too - it shows if you look at him close up.

In Federer's case, its easy to see the guy is not as conditioned as he once was. He was much much broader across the chest and shoulders up to 2007. He used to work like an absolute Trojan in the gym in the 2000s, he doesn't anymore and it shows. He's entering less events, spending more time away from tennis...it doesn't take Einstein to work out his athletic performance and results are going to decline also does it? This is what happened with Becker, Sampras and many others...its the motivation loss that's the primary cause of performance decline in the early 30s, not innate athletic ability. Put another way, what if Federer was working as hard in the gym now as he was in 2004-6 so had a much stronger core, back, arms and legs, more fast-twitch density...? Would all that have no benefit?

Bogbrush, Banbotram, Lydian, you all make very great points. Despite Roger winning Wimbledon 2012, I knew it was only a glimpse into his glorious past and not a case of the heady heights of 2003-2007 coming back. Wimbledon 2011 is a case in point. Since when does Roger get blasted off the court on his favourite surface?

He used to thrive on power hitters in the past and would negate their power with his excellent return game, which of course due to his reduced foot speed has become a glaring liability. It was the Nadals of the world who would play high lefty spin to his backhand and did not give him pace to feed off of who would trouble him. Now, he cannot seem to cope with either.

I agree with Lydian, that the foot speed is not necessarily innate, although one cannot dispute the natural effects of aging. However, if Roger were to put in the time in the gym, he would be to be at the top of the game longer. I think, with his life changes (marriage and his young children), it is difficult for him to maintain that singular focus. Also, his inferior conditioning vis-à-vis the other top five, is going to be ruthlessly exposed on a surface such as clay, where physical fitness is extremely important. He can get away with this on grass and fast hardcourts, but not on clay.

Also, the rest of the field has gotten better. The game has changed and Roger is struggling to keep up.

When all is said and done, I am glad that the French is over, I could not stomach another FO Final loss, especially if Nadal or Djokovic is on the other side of the net.

kemet wrote: I think, with his life changes (marriage and his young children), it is difficult for him to maintain that singular focus.

This must a be a massive factor.

Not only does it mean he can't put a load of extra training time in, it probably means he doesn't even want to. And who could hold that against him?

Marriage changes a person's focus, having children even more so.

I have a young child and it's blooming exhausting. And my job doesn't entail me going head to head against super-fit professional sportsman!

I'm actually amazed what Roger has managed to achieve in those circumstances.

To be fair family, etc, was his choice.
Family, kids, etc...is always going to increasingly lead your singular focus elsewhere.
So when we hear of decline lets bear in mind a lot of it is actually his choice to not spend as much time on the practice court or in the gym, etc.

Do anyone have the balls to bet on Haas and Stan both winning? Just me?

What's that expression JM - a fool and his money...?

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Do anyone have the balls to bet on Haas and Stan both winning? Just me?

I bought a lottery ticket instead - more chance of winning

lydian wrote:To be fair family, etc, was his choice.
Family, kids, etc...is always going to increasingly lead your singular focus elsewhere.
So when we hear of decline lets bear in mind a lot of it is actually his choice to not spend as much time on the practice court or in the gym, etc.

Yes, you're right.

And despite the reduced playing schedule, there doesn't seem to have been a drop off in exhibition matches, advert filming, promotional work etc.

Not that the above is right or wrong, it's his choice what he does with his life.

But he's clearly at a different phase of his life to the other three. I don't expect them to be going at it hammer and tong in the gym when they are Roger's age either.

No I don't either...they've all got long term GFs, wives, etc.
The tennis tour is a grind like no other IMO...its bound to sit heavier on your personal time as you get older.
However...you're a long time retired.
I wonder if Federer would be more motivated if Nadal was nearer his slam count?

lydian wrote:Oh there's no doubt the guy has slipped down with his speed and agility. We could have the same discussion about Sampras after 2000, or Agassi after 2003, or McEnroe after 1985. Are you blaming his decline on mono at AO'08? Many would argue 08+ was also the rise of the other top 3 into something like prime territory.

For the record - I'm not saying his racquet is the ONLY issue, nor was it an issue in 2006 when many other guys were also using older tech too. But it is an issue now if he wants to compensate the lack of power he's getting from loss of timing through poor positioning. Can I also say that I don't think he's putting the hard yards of conditioning work in anymore too...he looked to me like he has a few lbs of weight around his stomach, ok he's lean by anyone standards but he doesn't look at fit as he used to do and those arms are getting "spindlier" by the week. Compare him to Haas who still looks very strong indeed. Perhaps he just doesn't have the motivation to gruel it out in the gym anymore - these things also affect his speed and lead to poor positioning/shanking/power loss.

I hear where you're coming from BB - its not nice to have the reality of your guys best days being firmly behind him further reinforced by losses to people who likely wouldn't take a set off them in prime. That's the game we love I'm afraid...and he had it pretty good for a long time. The question becomes how long he's prepared to keep having these losses despite his desire to go onto Rio 2016. His career is very different to Haas'.

No, I'm not blaming the mono, for sure. In saying "he was never the same" I'm guardedly saying only that, that for whatever reason the World never seemed to return to it's starting point. The losses to mortals seemed just to carry on. Then again, one might even argue the descent to Earth began with those two shocking defeats to Canas in early 2007. It's a thought, maybe his purple patch (when he went two years losing 9 matches, 4 of those to Rafa on clay) was briefer than we think.

He does look less lithe doesn't he? Those pale shirts don't help by the way, but the ripped-to-shreds guy in those dark night matches at the USO looks to have got himself some kids and slippers. It's motivation isn't it? Maybe getting #7, and the 300 weeks at #1 (and deposing Pete) finally did it.

Yeah, it's a pain watching it but that's sport all over. Happens to them all. To rephrase your question, and using a very inappropriate sport but the only one that springs to mind right now, is he going to be Stephen Hendry (can't abide losing) or Steve Davis (loves competing)?

EDIT: bantroban - I hadn't read your earlier post about the phases of Federer's career: I more or less repeated your opinion but you got in first.

socal1976 wrote:Haas is playing beautifully so far this year. He can really trouble Novak. I am stunned at how well tommy is moving at this age. He must be pretty fit and healthy for once in his career because he gets to seemingly every ball and doesn't get tired. Part of it is that he has so much match experience it is like Haas knows where his opponent is going to hit the ball before he does.

In single word, Anticipation