Can Fed compete with the next batch?

First topic message reminder :

In interviews he is rightly dismissive of the endless questions about retirement, so presumably he feels he can take them on.

However Dimitrov (the next big thing) is 10 years younger than him! Kyrgios is a whole 14 years younger.

Given his age is it realistic of Roger to believe he can compete with another emerging cohort of young players?

bogbrush wrote:Murray didn't play the #3 in the quarters.

Murrays not the point here but it's the only way to get your attention. The trouble with you Craig is that you get your opinions in bite size portions ready made from the media. They say it, someone repeats it, you eat it.

It's nonsense, he went through quickly because his serve was awesome right through until the latter stages of Sunday. Going into the 3rd set with Novak he'd dropped serve twice all event. That helps speed matches up.

bogbrush as you very well know the rankings really are only part of the story. Yes Stan was ranked No.3 but is a player that Roger matches up to pretty well actually. Stan started the year on fire but form was more patchy coming into Wimbledon that much cannot be denied. It was Roger's toughest match en route to the final though but got pay back in buckets getting Raonic in the semi. Like I said though it takes nothing away from his feat of getting to the final at all. This discussion came about purely because I pointed out Roger won't get a better chance than he had on Sunday to add to his slam tally. What is so controversial about that?

Anyway, back to the original question, if Federer can be as strong on serve as he has been at Wimbledon, and most other tournaments this year that I've paid any attention to, then who among the next batch can cause too much trouble for him. I don't think any of them have great returning skills (hence Dimitrov losing to Karlovic last month). The question is can be continue to be that strong? I'm not sure why not if the back allows.

Federer is not a serious contender for slams...BUT, no one will want to have him in their draw. Not even Nadal. That fear factor is still alive.

Federer is a definite, serious contender for the ATP events. Over three sets, one week events, he is not dangerous, he's lethal.

Btw is there really a Big Four?



Federer is too old and Murray is too inconsistent. It's really a big two.

On the next but thing... Sumitro seems to be the only one with potential and even he needs to be consistent. Some time back Tsonga was regarded as the NBT and look what happened to him.

People keep saying this is the golden era of tennis.. It actually iis an era with big holes in it.

That should read Dimitrov not Sumitro!

CaledonianCraig wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:CC Murray faced 1 top 10er in his Wimbledon triumph.

Federer faced 3!

What is the relevance of that to this discussion please?

Explain to me the draw opened up for Federer?

Nadal (forget his grass court form) was knocked out and was scheduled to meet Roger in the slam semi. Sorry but Raonic is not in the same class. Look back to last year and see how many people here were saying Murray's draw opened up when Rafa lost early doors so I fail to see the difference here.

Federer has only ever faced 3 top 10ers twice at Wimbledon. 2005 when he won and this year.

I fail to see how you can compare a draw that compiled of 3 top 10ers to one that featured just 1.

But a big difference you are over-looking is Roger is seen as GOAT (in many people's eyes) whilst I am convinced Andy's title now that he should be handed is the luckiest ever multiple slam winner of all-time. So you see the difference there nullifies the difference in draw difficulties in my opinion. Besides as we know seedings/rankings don't mean everything when it comes to how players match-up - some lower rankers provide stronger challenges than higher ranked players.

Andy's Slams were deserved as he was the better player over the 2 weeks for the Slams he won. He caught Djokovic cold at both times and made the advantage count. You need luck on your side and for once it was with Andy. That's not a bad or negative thing

In terms of Federer, the draw wasn't that kind to him. He played good tennis all the way through. He faced some tough opponents, but his tennis still proved too good for those players. It's not like Roger's level dropped up until the final. It is difficult for anyone to maintain that standard for 7 BO5 especially at 33.

Had Roger won the 3rd set yesterday, we would be celebrating Wimbledon number 8.

Try telling that to many that Andy's slam wins were deserved. I am sick to death hearing he only won Wimbledon as Novak was knackered last year, only won US Open because it was windy and only won the Olympics because Roger was knackered.

As for Roger he deserved his final place definitely but the point I make is that will he get a better chance in the future to add to his slam tally and I can't see that he will. The interesting thing is that Novak has dispelled that myth that he is not that great on grass - I'd say he is actually better on grass than he is on clay.

every slam is well deserved. 128 contenders, 7 best of 5 matches. just one winner. and always the fair winner

Andy won his Slams because for once mentally he was in a better place. Andy hasn't had the privilege of playing at least 1 virgin Slam finalist like the other 3. Makes all the difference I feel when going into a Slam final. Andy yes had a kind draw at Wimbledon, but least he seized that opportunity. The US Open he simply played better under the conditions. I think for all he has done in his career a few Slams isn't asking much.

As for Federer. Yes you can throw the GOAT tag out there, but there are limits to his powers, especially with age. If Roger wanted to play his worst match, it would be earlier in the tournament. Posters spoke of Andy not being tested. Aside from Wawrinka, Federer wasn't really pushed. Djokovic surprised many by outplaying Roger for 3 sets in that match.

naxroy wrote:every slam is well deserved. 128 contenders, 7 best of 5 matches. just one winner. and always the fair winner

  

Its a bit daft to claim Murray was 'lucky' to win 2 slams. Sure, he got his share of luck in his 2 slam wins, but he paid his dues having had to face Federer and Djokovic in several other slam finals rather than a rookie finalist (look up the opponents Fed, Djoko and Nadal faced in their first slam finals).

Back to Federer, I think his motivations for playing on are to be around for next Olympics - he wants to win Olympic singles gold (but won't) and also to stick around a bit longer so both sets of twins can see him play at top level. Whilst the odds are against him winning another slam, if he keeps fit, serving well and can get a bit of luck with the draw (like this year's Wimbledon) he has more than a decent shot. The younger generation isn't quite ready yet in my opinion - Dimitrov impressed this year but whilst he has won titles on different surfaces I'm not convinced his game translates so well onto the hardcourt slams.

I think what would be curtains for Federer's career is if a new multi-slam winning champion emerged. I personally don't see this happening for another 2 years, so I do expect him to be near the top for a little while yet, and may even sneak another slam. As a fan of his game though I don't really mind though - I'm just glad he's still around playing at or near the top level so we can continue to enjoy his tennis.

Certain rather graceless posters would do well to remember how keen they were to say Murray was better than Federer and would eclipse all his records lickety-split. I wonder how that prediction played out...

MrInvisible wrote:
he wants to ... stick around a bit longer so both sets of twins can see him play at top level.  

If he keeps getting Mirka up the duff he'll never be able to retire!

Sorry, but who brought to this thread the idea that Murray got lucky in his Wimbledon? Obviously it must be someone looking to denigrate him. I can't see Hawkeye on here so who was it?

bogbrush wrote:Sorry, but who brought to this thread the idea that Murray got lucky in his Wimbledon? Obviously it must be someone looking to denigrate him. I can't see Hawkeye on here so who was it?

The voices in his head?

If Federer can keep his backside in the gym and continue working hard on his fitness, then I don't see any reason why he can't continue to be near the top for a while yet. As per BB's topic, the new stick has helped massively. And he's clearly still very motivated to play the game. Can the youngsters make a dent? Maybe, but he and Murray are the gatekeepers to the top four, and they won't be easy to brush aside.

bogbrush wrote:Sorry, but who brought to this thread the idea that Murray got lucky in his Wimbledon? Obviously it must be someone looking to denigrate him. I can't see Hawkeye on here so who was it?

Quite.

The implication that anti-Murray comments are both common and perpetrated by 'Federer fans' is wearing very thin indeed.

The Old Man is very capable and at #3, he is a dangerous opponent. He becomes a  completely different animal at slams, IMVHO.

As Nax says, winning a single slam is no small feat, winning more than one gets harder, whether it is Murray or Safin, Hewitt or Krajicek.

The debate on draws opening up or not is fairly relative (and in some respects quaint), if Kyrgios can take out Nadal, or Stakhovsky can take out Federer or Dimitrov can take out Murray or Cilic can take out Berdych (and he almost had Djokovic by the shorts, as Verdasco had Murray), it makes very little difference what the draw looks like, foresight or hindsight.

The Old Man played fantastic tennis. As YvonneT says, back permitting, he is a contender. CP rightly says, neither of the Top 2 wants him in their half.

Murray has the US HC swing to start his climb back in rankings.

I expect W 2015 to be crowned with a second roof on Court 1.

On the Old Man retiring, no one really knows. I think he will carry on playing till the girls are old enough to not just see him play but remember him play and equally importantly see the adulation he's greeted with, wherever he goes.

Old and Slamless he might be, he still is the biggest attraction in world tennis.

I think if he and Pete Sampras joined the seniors tour and played regularly, that would rival the main tour for attendances.

bogbrush wrote:Sorry, but who brought to this thread the idea that Murray got lucky in his Wimbledon? Obviously it must be someone looking to denigrate him. I can't see Hawkeye on here so who was it?

No not in this thread but Lydian has used those terms a few times, other posters have loosely used the term (not many here) but take it from me it is a term used popularly across the net on the forums.

reckoner wrote:Certain rather graceless posters would do well to remember how keen they were to say Murray was better than Federer and would eclipse all his records lickety-split. I wonder how that prediction played out...

And were they exactly? I have yet to come across any such poster.

laverfan wrote:The Old Man is very capable and at #3, he is a dangerous opponent. He becomes a  completely different animal at slams, IMVHO.

As Nax says, winning a single slam is no small feat, winning more than one gets harder, whether it is Murray or Safin, Hewitt or Krajicek.

The debate on draws opening up or not is fairly relative (and in some respects quaint), if Kyrgios can take out Nadal, or Stakhovsky can take out Federer or Dimitrov can take out Murray or Cilic can take out Berdych (and he almost had Djokovic by the shorts, as Verdasco had Murray), it makes very little difference what the draw looks like, foresight or hindsight.

The Old Man played fantastic tennis. As YvonneT says, back permitting, he is a contender. CP rightly says, neither of the Top 2 wants him in their half.

Murray has the US HC swing to start his climb back in rankings.

I expect W 2015 to be crowned with a second roof on Court 1.

My remark about draws opening up should be explained. I have said time and again you can only beat who is out in front of you and this is what Roger done this year and Andy did last year. However, the term was used copiously last year because Nadal had been drawn to face Murray in the semi but was knocked out early. The same happened this year with Federer but any inference of draw opening up is a big no no. Sorry but that is clear double standards. Now as I said draws opening up is tosh as you only beat who you can play and if player A, B or C fall by the wayside that is not Murray or Federer's fault but some people refuse to see it that way all the time when Andy is involved.

Funny how this thread about Federer being able to compete at the highest level turns into a discussion about Murray. Wasn't there a separate thread for Murray?   

Based on Sunday's final one can only conclude that Federer is still very capable of winning slams at almost 33. He pushed the #1 all the way, and if he'd converted the breakpoint at 3-3 in the 5th, people would now be writing Djokovic will never win a slam again and Federer will certainly reach 20.

We have seem time and again that these great champions can bounce back from tough losses. Nadal would never beat Djokovic anymore after his losing streak in 2011, Federer should have retired after 2011, Murray would be an eternal runner-up, right?

Federer played some fantastic attacking grass court tennis, which made this final stand out. If we'd have had two baseliners grinding it out it would have been much less interesting. Let's hope Dimitrov can take the role of Federer in the future.

Yes proStaff it is funny and if you check back it will confirm it wasn't me who introduced Murray to the conversation.

Compete yes, beating them, thats a little harder, but doable.

A few unconverted BP's and a few silly mistakes cost Fed the match on Sunday, but chances were there, so he can still go neck and neck.

CCraig seems hell bent on polluting every thread with Murray  

CaledonianCraig wrote:

laverfan wrote:The Old Man is very capable and at #3, he is a dangerous opponent. He becomes a  completely different animal at slams, IMVHO.

As Nax says, winning a single slam is no small feat, winning more than one gets harder, whether it is Murray or Safin, Hewitt or Krajicek.

The debate on draws opening up or not is fairly relative (and in some respects quaint), if Kyrgios can take out Nadal, or Stakhovsky can take out Federer or Dimitrov can take out Murray or Cilic can take out Berdych (and he almost had Djokovic by the shorts, as Verdasco had Murray), it makes very little difference what the draw looks like, foresight or hindsight.

The Old Man played fantastic tennis. As YvonneT says, back permitting, he is a contender. CP rightly says, neither of the Top 2 wants him in their half.

Murray has the US HC swing to start his climb back in rankings.

I expect W 2015 to be crowned with a second roof on Court 1.

My remark about draws opening up should be explained. I have said time and again you can only beat who is out in front of you and this is what Roger done this year and Andy did last year. However, the term was used copiously last year because Nadal had been drawn to face Murray in the semi but was knocked out early. The same happened this year with Federer but any inference of draw opening up is a big no no. Sorry but that is clear double standards. Now as I said draws opening up is tosh as you only beat who you can play and if player A, B or C fall by the wayside that is not Murray or Federer's fault but some people refuse to see it that way all the time when Andy is involved.

The thing is in Murray's draw last year was Federer, Nadal and Wawrinka and by the end of round 2 all 3 were taken out. That's a lot of quality opponents gone by the wayside early in the draw.

You can't really say that without Nadal, Fed's draw became that much easier. Yes it might have given him just a slight mental boost, but still there were enough quality players left in his draw.

It's not double standards as such, just all too simplistic to say a draw got easier because of the absence of 1 player.

Lets not beat around the bush here. When on form there are only a handful of players capable of beating Federer and one of those is certainly Nadal and during last Wimbledon, Murray was in that same mindset/vein of form. So for me both got to the final on their own merits and deserved it but that is not how people see it on forums is what I am saying.

Anyone saying Andy got it easy last year, needs a reality check. So chill CC.

As others have said, anyone going through 2 weeks play in to the final, has earned the final and the title.

What a way to ruin threads, with last year crap.

I wouldn't worry about other forums CC. I go on many different forums and yes sometimes I do wonder if they even watch the sport because some of them are so far removed from reality and what happens in the sport that it is frightening how stupid some people are on different forums.

Yes Andy had the benefit of the top players being beaten, but he could've done a Henman and fluffed his lines which he almost did against Verdasco and Janowicz. The fact he done it with a 'bad back' is even more testament to the achievement!

Err Jahu do me a favour and quit making false accusations. It was not me that brought Murray into this conversation. I will await an apology.

CC, who said you brought it up? You are making false imaginations. At least don't fan the flames when someone takes a shot at Andy   

Mr. Andy Protector.

No apology as I never said you did it. But you should refrain making a mess of every Andy criticism on any thread Andy is mentioned.

Jahu wrote:


CCraig seems hell bent on polluting every thread with Murray  

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

No its pretty uncut. Polluting is not YOU starting it. Its you dragging it on when someone else starts saying sh1t about Andy.

Jahu wrote:No its pretty uncut. Polluting is not YOU starting it. Its you dragging it on when someone else starts saying sh1t about Andy.

Ah right so where is the retort to those that brought Murray up first here which was reckoner. That is who you should direct your rebukes at and not me. Look again and I tried with several posts to keep to about Federer but I can count at least three posters who insisted on bringing Murray into this so leave off about the polluting eh.

You are more mature then most of us here. You should give us an example of how to not behave here.

Kiss pappi

Wow I made one off the cuff remark Craig and it had nothing whatsoever to do with whether Murray deserved his slam wins.

In fact Craig IIRC I specifically reached out to you when Murray won and said "What a moment this must be for you CaledonianCraig - many congratulations." and you completely blanked me! Not nice.

reckoner wrote:Wow I made one off the cuff remark Craig and it had nothing whatsoever to do with whether Murray deserved his slam wins.

No reckoner I realise that. Apologies for that but was something bubbling in me from other stuff read on the net over the course of a fair few days. Anyways time for me to take a long break now.   

CaledonianCraig wrote:

reckoner wrote:Wow I made one off the cuff remark Craig and it had nothing whatsoever to do with whether Murray deserved his slam wins.

No reckoner I realise that. Apologies for that but was something bubbling in me from other stuff read on the net over the course of a fair few days. Anyways time for me to take a long break now.   

I think the consensus across this board was and remains that Murray thoroughly deserved his slams if it helps. I'm not sure what other boards you frequent but they sound a bit "special".

As things stand, there are only two players who would start as favourite in a slam match against Federer: Nadal and Djokovic.

If Murray rediscovers his mojo, possibly he could be a third.

Beyond that, Fed starts as the favourite against anyone.

He is currently the #3 player in the world, and his chances at a slam should be considered as typical of that ranking: decent but probably needs a draw to break kindly or an off-day from the players above him.

Murray (x2), Wawrinka and Del Potro have all won slam when ranked #3 or lower. It can happen. I can't see any grounds for thinking it can't for Federer just because of his age. His ranking is not an honourary title, it's a reflection of his recent form.

legendkillarV2 wrote:You can't really say that without Nadal, Fed's draw became that much easier. Yes it might have given him just a slight mental boost, but still there were enough quality players left in his draw.

It's not double standards as such, just all too simplistic to say a draw got easier because of the absence of 1 player.

LK, I have immense admiration for Edmondson or Korda. At AO, Federer playing a five-setter with Simon, Murray losing in five to Verdasco (and this was the year when Verdsaco almost took out Nadal as well), no slam is easy.

In some cases, the pressure becomes even greater.

RG 2009 is a prime example of the pressure on Federer, and he had come through one hell of a draw. Martin was easy, but Acasuso (4 sets - 2 TBs), Mathieu (4 sets, lost the first set), Haas (almost blew him out, the inside-out FH saved the day) was tough. If Monfils (3 sets) was relatively easy, Del Potro (5 sets) was payback time for Monfils match.

HM Murdoch wrote:His ranking is not an honourary title, it's a reflection of his recent form.

As is Djokovic's fight back to #1.

I agree that the pressure was immense on Federer in that French Open in 2009, especially that Nadal was taken out like he was. Federer had to pull out some gutsy performances eg Haas and Del Potro. In fairness though he ran into a flat Soderling in that final who must've felt he climbed Mount Everest after that performance against Nadal. I remember Pat Cash referring to Federer as being the 2nd best Clay Courter on tour.

I must admit that with the way Federer played all Wimbledon that he would waltz his way to an 18th Slam. I think what we all didn't anticipate was an inspired Djokovic that forced Federer into making errors and misfire shots we all expected him to make normally.

I would like to think Federer is a smart guy on court, in terms of being cerebral (and perhaps smart when he wore that blazer in 2006   !) and what he lacks in terms of fitness and speed of his younger opponents he will make up for in smart play and his skills. If his back goes again then no, he won't be able to keep up with the younger guys or anyone for that matter. The younger guys will improve with time but until then I think he can cope with them because when it comes to slams, he has got experience to carry him through tough situations.

As for this stuff about easy draws and not playing top seeds mentioned by CC, what nonsense! He played the Aussie Open champion and world #3 who may or may not have been tired after consecutive days play.Raonic was making his way through the draws nicely too and then he ran into Novak who nearly lost that match. I think if Federer had turned on the agressive play as he did in the 4th set he could have won that match. He played as he did in the RG semi 0f 2011 which I think denied Djokovic the grand slam that year. Yes, Nadal losing was a bonus but in 2012 Fed got Djokovic and Murray back to back. I would like to point out to CC that Murray has not won a slam against anyone other Djokovic nor has be done it coming off victories against Nadal or Federer for that matter.

I can't speak for Craig, but I also mentioned that the draw worked out nicely for him and by that I meant specifically that he was in Nadal's half and Nadal lost early - nothing more than that. I genuinely think for Federer to have a good chance of winning of a slam at his age, he needs to get to a final having expended minimal energy (physical & mental), which really means avoiding Nadal & Djokovic at their normal slam level.

How often has Federer had a slam with a route to final without either of those 2?
2011 - zero
2012 - one (US Open, lost to Berdych)
2013 - two (Aus Open, lost to Murray; Roland Garros, lost to Tsonga)
2014 - one (Wimbledon, reached final)

Assuming this pattern continues, that maybe gives a couple of such "ideal" draws before he really is too old. Of course, he does have a chance without an "ideal" draw, but it's very low in my opinion (in BO5).

Please read the full post Feds Fan. I stated Roger deserved his final spot and I don't buy into players getting lucky when draws open up. My problem arises when people like to say a certain player in particular gets lucky but is similar circumstances in a different tournament a different player has not got lucky. Sorry not on.

I will re-iterate again that players can only beat players in front of them - players I may add who have earned their right getting to that stage. As for has Murray only beating Djokovic in slam finals let's remember on both occasions he was world no. 1 and at US Open Murray beat Berdych in semis who had just knocked Roger out.

CC,

I agree with you in that you can only play who in on the other side of the net. However, it was forunate for Roger and Andy the last couple of years they did not have to play Nadal as it is a case of a bad match up. I think Andy took full advantage of a very empty draw last year and it was quite fortunate he had to play just the one higher seed. How often does that happen? It is like USO 2010 when Nadal played Djokovic in the final and until then he had not played a top ten player to get that far. I for one admit had Nadal been in the semis, he would have most likely got the win over Federer, again due to it being one style of play which neutralises another.

This whole X beat Y and then lost to Z mean nothing simply because in that case Raonic should have beaten Federer because he beat Kyrgios who beat Nadal who almost always beats Federer. Doesn't work like that as you know.

FedsFan wrote:CC,

I agree with you in that you can only play who in on the other side of the net. However, it was forunate for Roger and Andy the last couple of years they did not have to play Nadal as it is a case of a bad match up. I think Andy took full advantage of a very empty draw last year and it was quite fortunate he had to play just the one higher seed. How often does that happen? It is like USO 2010 when Nadal played Djokovic in the final and until then he had not played a top ten player to get that far. I for one admit had Nadal been in the semis, he would have most likely got the win over Federer, again due to it being one style of play which neutralises another.

This whole X beat Y and then lost to Z mean nothing simply because in that case Raonic should have beaten Federer because he beat Kyrgios who beat Nadal who almost always beats Federer. Doesn't work like that as you know.  

Well Murray was ranked No.2 last Wimbledon so it was impossible for him to draw any more than one player ranked higher than him. And since we are talking about match-ups here bear in mind that Murray played players that have the game that can really test him. For example Verdasco - a hard hitter and Janowicz is similar. Now to another top player they deal with them fine but it is all match ups. Fed has no problems beating Stan but Murray does. Tsonga has caused problems for Roger at slams but less so for Andy. Now Murray got through those challenges to win. Lydian often touts that it was because Djoko was tired but I wish he would check the stats as Andy was actually on court half an hour longer than Djokovic to reach the final. What I am trying to say is that one players route to a slam win may look plain sailing from one players point of view as they can deal with those players better but another top player may have a real banana skin in there - it is all about match ups. As for Nadal and his early exits it isn't Roger or Andy's fault if he is not up to reaching the latter stages. Heck the slams would be as boring as hell if we just seeded players through automatically to each slam quarters/semis.

No way would last years Murray have beaten last Sunday's Djokovic in my opinion. Sorry.

Anyway...can Fed compete with the next batch...well he just beat Raonic in the semis! I think he would beat Kyrgios presently...Dimitrov I'm 50/50 about.

YvonneT wrote:How often has Federer had a slam with a route to final without either of those 2?
2011 - zero
2012 - one (US Open, lost to Berdych)
2013 - two (Aus Open, lost to Murray; Roland Garros, lost to Tsonga)
2014 - one (Wimbledon, reached final)

I missed one in my original post, should be (I think):
2011 - zero
2012 - one (US Open, lost QF to Berdych)
2013 - three (Aus Open, lost SF to Murray; Roland Garros, lost QF to Tsonga; Wimbledon, lost R2 to Stakhovsky)
2014 - one (Wimbledon, reached final)
Of course, even if he had got as far as the final on those occasions, it was still either Djokovic or Nadal who would have been across the net. Still, get to the final and you give yourself a chance.

lydian wrote:Anyway...can Fed compete with the next batch...well he just beat Raonic in the semis! I think he would beat Kyrgios presently...Dimitrov I'm 50/50 about.

Raonic's been much closer in his previous matches than last week, and he was pretty nervy, but I'd still have Federer favourite against him for a while yet.
Nishikori has a few wins now so is likely to go into any future match with confidence.

lydian wrote:No way would last years Murray have beaten last Sunday's Djokovic in my opinion. Sorry.

Well that is your opinion and speculation with it. Have you ever considered the match ups and that on grass Andy matches up well to Novak on grass - Wimbledon 2013 and Olympic semis both straight sets wins for Murray when it could be argued Novak was in better form.

lydian wrote:No way would last years Murray have beaten last Sunday's Djokovic in my opinion. Sorry.

I shouldn't be continuing the Murray discussions on this thread, but without arguing against your statement there, I thought Djokovic played much better in the Olympic semi-final than he did in last year's final and still got beaten.