The Indian Wells Masters 1000 Thread

[temporary21]

First topic message reminder :

Figured that masters 1000 events deserve their own threads and as such here is your place for all things Indian Wells.

[Silver]

This is why I think it is very "fanboyish" to think Federer 2007 is much better than today's. I actually think Federer 2007 would have been crushed 61 62 by Djokovic yesterday. We could argue that Federer 2009 or 2011 or 12 was better than Federer 2015....but 2007? no way.

Brave position to take. Even the most ardent Novak fan would strongly disagree with you on that one, let alone everyone else.

To be clear I think Fed was better from 07-04 but I don't think the fall off is as drastic over the ensuing years particularly in 09, 10 etc. as people make it. Even today I think it is slim degradation. I don't think enough credit is given to his competition level improving. People have been chalking up every Fed loss since 09 to age and slow conditions, that would be like today blaming Murray and Djoko losses to the fact that they are over the hill.

Yeah, agreed. This thread has been pretty sensibly discussed actually, I think most posts here have said as much - he's fallen off a bit, and is a very different player, but the gap is nowhere near as wide as some say. He's still playing great tennis even today, and the rankings back it up.

As for the age thing, I'd say it became a genuine factor towards the end of 2012, somewhere around there. I hate how some fans of Federer don't give enough credit to his opposition, it makes those of us who think highly of Novak and co. look bad. There's very little between 'peak' Federer, Djokovic and Nadal.

[TheMessi]

I think the whole Federer has fallen completely off his game since 07 is specious. I think it has a lot to do with him getting tougher competition from Nadal on a fast court and having the pack as well as represented mainly by Djokovic start to close the distance. Lets remember the tour isn't just Federer, guys like Seppi, Lopez, Ferrer showing that at the same age they are playing some of their best tennis. Lets look at Haas who was even older and had a buttload of injuries. The top 100 its at the oldest it has ever been. So age can't be as huge a deciding factor as many people would like to make it. Lets remember that since 09 the age excuse has been made over and over for Federer. Every loss was because he was over the hill and young guys were just benefitting from age. Well Djokovic is as old as Fed was in 09, as a Novak fan should I claim every Djokovic loss to his age or should Murray fans at this point do that? It has been six years we have been hearing the fed is just old routine, and frankly in that time frame he has pretty much won a great deal, won a lot of slams, been number 1 and he is still playing great tennis.

Completely agree. This is why the Federer supporters always go back to 2007...cause that's the time he was winning everything right and left and therefore can only explain the lack of further success by Fed dropping form and not the opposition getting better.

[It Must Be Love]

Federer went into 2008 26 years old, and Djokovic went into 2014 26 years old too.

[TheMessi]

This is why I think it is very "fanboyish" to think Federer 2007 is much better than today's. I actually think Federer 2007 would have been crushed 61 62 by Djokovic yesterday. We could argue that Federer 2009 or 2011 or 12 was better than Federer 2015....but 2007? no way.

Brave position to take. Even the most ardent Novak fan would strongly disagree with you on that one, let alone everyone else.

To be clear I think Fed was better from 07-04 but I don't think the fall off is as drastic over the ensuing years particularly in 09, 10 etc. as people make it. Even today I think it is slim degradation. I don't think enough credit is given to his competition level improving. People have been chalking up every Fed loss since 09 to age and slow conditions, that would be like today blaming Murray and Djoko losses to the fact that they are over the hill.

Yeah, agreed. This thread has been pretty sensibly discussed actually, I think most posts here have said as much - he's fallen off a bit, and is a very different player, but the gap is nowhere near as wide as some say. He's still playing great tennis even today, and the rankings back it up.

As for the age thing, I'd say it became a genuine factor towards the end of 2012, somewhere around there. I hate how some fans of Federer don't give enough credit to his opposition, it makes those of us who think highly of Novak and co. look bad. There's very little between 'peak' Federer, Djokovic and Nadal.

But aren't we overlooking the huge effort put by Nishi, Cilic, Rao, Berdych, Nadal, Coric, Dimi, Murray and the rest of field to catch up with the top players? Aren't we overlooking the effort those top players are making to stay ahead of the pack?

[socal1976]

This is why I think it is very "fanboyish" to think Federer 2007 is much better than today's. I actually think Federer 2007 would have been crushed 61 62 by Djokovic yesterday. We could argue that Federer 2009 or 2011 or 12 was better than Federer 2015....but 2007? no way.

Brave position to take. Even the most ardent Novak fan would strongly disagree with you on that one, let alone everyone else.

To be clear I think Fed was better from 07-04 but I don't think the fall off is as drastic over the ensuing years particularly in 09, 10 etc. as people make it. Even today I think it is slim degradation. I don't think enough credit is given to his competition level improving. People have been chalking up every Fed loss since 09 to age and slow conditions, that would be like today blaming Murray and Djoko losses to the fact that they are over the hill.

Yeah, agreed. This thread has been pretty sensibly discussed actually, I think most posts here have said as much - he's fallen off a bit, and is a very different player, but the gap is nowhere near as wide as some say. He's still playing great tennis even today, and the rankings back it up.

As for the age thing, I'd say it became a genuine factor towards the end of 2012, somewhere around there. I hate how some fans of Federer don't give enough credit to his opposition, it makes those of us who think highly of Novak and co. look bad. There's very little between 'peak' Federer, Djokovic and Nadal.

Silver, I agree that you do give credit where credit is due but that isn't the majority I have seen from most Fed fans. Not all mind you as your views are pretty balanced and cool-headed either way. But I have been hearing this Fed is old excuse now really since the mono excuse in 08 wore off we went straight to fed is old and passed his peak. From 09 and 10, every fed loss to one of his rivals was because of two things age and slow conditions. How many times have we heard after a Djoko win, (yeah but if he played Fed in his peak 04-07 Fed would destroy him) argument. Frankly, it ignores how much better a player Djokovic is since oh he was 19 an 18 years old. It also, doesn't pay testament to how much better Nadal is on Hardcourts since that period.

[socal1976]

This is why I think it is very "fanboyish" to think Federer 2007 is much better than today's. I actually think Federer 2007 would have been crushed 61 62 by Djokovic yesterday. We could argue that Federer 2009 or 2011 or 12 was better than Federer 2015....but 2007? no way.

Brave position to take. Even the most ardent Novak fan would strongly disagree with you on that one, let alone everyone else.

To be clear I think Fed was better from 07-04 but I don't think the fall off is as drastic over the ensuing years particularly in 09, 10 etc. as people make it. Even today I think it is slim degradation. I don't think enough credit is given to his competition level improving. People have been chalking up every Fed loss since 09 to age and slow conditions, that would be like today blaming Murray and Djoko losses to the fact that they are over the hill.

Yeah, agreed. This thread has been pretty sensibly discussed actually, I think most posts here have said as much - he's fallen off a bit, and is a very different player, but the gap is nowhere near as wide as some say. He's still playing great tennis even today, and the rankings back it up.

As for the age thing, I'd say it became a genuine factor towards the end of 2012, somewhere around there. I hate how some fans of Federer don't give enough credit to his opposition, it makes those of us who think highly of Novak and co. look bad. There's very little between 'peak' Federer, Djokovic and Nadal.

But aren't we overlooking the huge effort put by Nishi, Cilic, Rao, Berdych, Nadal, Coric, Dimi, Murray and the rest of field to catch up with the top players? Aren't we overlooking the effort those top players are making to stay ahead of the pack?

Exactly, it is as if the only thing that matters is Fed's age. The fact is that the whole top 100 is old. That the best players in the world are all in their late 20s and early 30s. The same age Fed was when this fed is over the hill dodge began. I will just take the fed fan precedent all Novak losses from here on out are simply due to his age, like Fed's post 09 losses.

[CAS]

Federer said the issue between 08-11 it took him a long time to accept he was getting older and had to change, he's won all those titles and all of a sudden people ae telling him to change against Djokovic, Nadal and Murray but he's ROGER FEDERER.

I get sick of commentators saying he's as good as ever, he's world number 2 so he's gonna win a lot of matches but would Federer of 03-07 lost to Andreas Seppi in the 3rd round of a slam? OR Sergei Stakhovsky at Wimbledon? Hell no.

I agree his decline by some fans is over exaggerated but so is the other end of the spectrum that he's better than ever.

Also in regards to Novak being the age Federer was when he started to 'decline' Djokovic doesn't have 22 year old Nadals and Djokovic level chasing him down! Imagine Novak now having 08-10 Nadal on his case now, or 2011 Djokovic. The margins are thin and maybe a player 5\6 years younger who is an (upcoming great) would make Novak look a little older right now.

I mean Federer in 2010 and 11 only really lost to Novak and Rafa, I think that Federer would be winning as much if not more than 14/15 Djokovic is right now considering the competition

[TheMessi]

Federer said the issue between 08-11 it took him a long time to accept he was getting older and had to change

Any reference? Never heard him say that....but I don't follow tennis as closely as Snooker.

[Guest]

Good post CAS.

Spot on.

[Josiah Maiestas]

This is why I think it is very "fanboyish" to think Federer 2007 is much better than today's. I actually think Federer 2007 would have been crushed 61 62 by Djokovic yesterday. We could argue that Federer 2009 or 2011 or 12 was better than Federer 2015....but 2007? no way.

Yes ok.. 2007 Federer would get demolished by this Djokovic

So that Federer would've lost to Nishikori would he really? Nah I don't think so.

[socal1976]

Federer said the issue between 08-11 it took him a long time to accept he was getting older and had to change, he's won all those titles and all of a sudden people ae telling him to change against Djokovic, Nadal and Murray but he's ROGER FEDERER.

I get sick of commentators saying he's as good as ever, he's world number 2 so he's gonna win a lot of matches but would Federer of 03-07 lost to Andreas Seppi in the 3rd round of a slam? OR Sergei Stakhovsky at Wimbledon? Hell no.

I agree his decline by some fans is over exaggerated but so is the other end of the spectrum that he's better than ever.

Also in regards to Novak being the age Federer was when he started to 'decline' Djokovic doesn't have 22 year old Nadals and Djokovic level chasing him down! Imagine Novak now having 08-10 Nadal on his case now, or 2011 Djokovic. The margins are thin and maybe a player 5\6 years younger who is an (upcoming great) would make Novak look a little older right now.

I mean Federer in 2010 and 11 only really lost to Novak and Rafa, I think that Federer would be winning as much if not more than 14/15 Djokovic is right now considering the competition

Bingo, that one line is the problem I have had with the reasoning Fed fans that has resulted in 4 separate banning and endless angry recriminations. The fact that you acknowledge the superior quality Fed's chasing pack compared to what we have now and also their superior quality to the players of Fed's generation and how the improvement of these players also impacts Fed's results; is something that few Federer fans ever acknowledge. It is all either because of mono, fed's age, and slow conditions; etc. The fact is that the quality of his chasing pack and their development is also a bigger part of the equation which fed fans refuse to acknowledge. They would like us to believe that Nadal, Djoko, and Murray are all the same or worse than they were in fed's peak or just fitter. I am not making up these arguments just pointing out how too much emphasis is placed on the excuses as opposed to the quality of opposition. And this argument would be more credible lets say if it started the last couple of years but I have been hearing this crap for 5 years now at least. And at a time when the whole tour is pretty old, especially all the top players.

[bogbrush]

Nish & the rest are ordinary, not worth talking about. The idea that they would figure in any big discussion at any period is ridiculous.

Federer is currently benefitting from the racquet change (oh how I wish he'd done that 5 years ago!) and again changing his game to adapt to age. However he can't play hard past 2 hours now, you could see yesterday his goose was cooked in the 3rd. It's great to see but put him against his younger self and he'd not do well at all. The younger Federer was far faster into position and able to play hard all day.

On the racquet, the backhand shanks just hardly happen any more. It's a staggering change, to the extent that I am now relaxed watching him go corner to corner with someone like Djokovic.

As for peak age etc., I await with interest the observations of fans of Murray, etc. when they are closing in on 34 regarding their favourites position.

[temporary21]

The game moves on. The Federer of 07 was a more complete player, but would suffer against an improved Djokovic. Put simply hed have a much harder time at the baseline. Roger has made the right call and focused on a quicker attacking game, focused more on his serve, as hes gotten older to give him an edge.
The downside is that he can be easier to counter. If an opponenents lob/pass game is on it puts him in more strife.

[bogbrush]

Federer said the issue between 08-11 it took him a long time to accept he was getting older and had to change, he's won all those titles and all of a sudden people ae telling him to change against Djokovic, Nadal and Murray but he's ROGER FEDERER.

I get sick of commentators saying he's as good as ever, he's world number 2 so he's gonna win a lot of matches but would Federer of 03-07 lost to Andreas Seppi in the 3rd round of a slam? OR Sergei Stakhovsky at Wimbledon? Hell no.

I agree his decline by some fans is over exaggerated but so is the other end of the spectrum that he's better than ever.

Also in regards to Novak being the age Federer was when he started to 'decline' Djokovic doesn't have 22 year old Nadals and Djokovic level chasing him down! Imagine Novak now having 08-10 Nadal on his case now, or 2011 Djokovic. The margins are thin and maybe a player 5\6 years younger who is an (upcoming great) would make Novak look a little older right now.

I mean Federer in 2010 and 11 only really lost to Novak and Rafa, I think that Federer would be winning as much if not more than 14/15 Djokovic is right now considering the competition

Excellent post. One of the problems with being older isn't age itself, but that you are the guy having to respond to younger foes who have designed their games with yours in mind.

I also agree that Novak etc are hugely fortunate to have such a dearth of talent coming up; Hell, they could last for ages at the top considering there is NOTHING coming through.

[temporary21]

Weve gotta remember that Novak played against the 07 Roger and won, you cant stand still in the tennis business, even if youre Roger

[TheMessi]

Nish & the rest are ordinary, not worth talking about. The idea that they would figure in any big discussion at any period is ridiculous.

Federer is currently benefitting from the racquet change (oh how I wish he'd done that 5 years ago!) and again changing his game to adapt to age. However he can't play hard past 2 hours now, you could see yesterday his goose was cooked in the 3rd. It's great to see but put him against his younger self and he'd not do well at all. The younger Federer was far faster into position and able to play hard all day.

On the racquet, the backhand shanks just hardly happen any more. It's a staggering change, to the extent that I am now relaxed watching him go corner to corner with someone like Djokovic.

As for peak age etc., I await with interest the observations of fans of Murray, etc. when they are closing in on 34 regarding their favourites position.

Agree but that is exactly the problem he had in the past versus Hewitt first, then Djoko, Murray and Nadal. This is why he started to lose to this new generation. He was doing fine against everybody else before and after 2007.

[TheMessi]

Weve gotta remember that Novak played against the 07 Roger and won, you cant stand still in the tennis business, even if youre Roger

That's so true.

[bogbrush]

Nish & the rest are ordinary, not worth talking about. The idea that they would figure in any big discussion at any period is ridiculous.

Federer is currently benefitting from the racquet change (oh how I wish he'd done that 5 years ago!) and again changing his game to adapt to age. However he can't play hard past 2 hours now, you could see yesterday his goose was cooked in the 3rd. It's great to see but put him against his younger self and he'd not do well at all. The younger Federer was far faster into position and able to play hard all day.

On the racquet, the backhand shanks just hardly happen any more. It's a staggering change, to the extent that I am now relaxed watching him go corner to corner with someone like Djokovic.

As for peak age etc., I await with interest the observations of fans of Murray, etc. when they are closing in on 34 regarding their favourites position.

Agree but that is exactly the problem he had in the past versus Hewitt first, then Djoko, Murray and Nadal. This is why he started to lose to this new generation. He was doing fine against everybody else before and after 2007.

What? Are you kidding?

He was awesomely fit. 5 hours against Rafa on clay in Rome showed that. And many more. I have no idea where you've pulled that idea from.

He had a crap year in 2008, results fell off a cliff against all sorts of players he wasn't dropping many games to before, but that was for a one-off reason. Since then apart from back issues that only flared up occasionally (other than 2013) he's been ok. However his results against the field fell off badly in 2008 and never really recaptured 2005-7 level. It's like Djokovic; still a great player but his annus mirabilis will always be 2011.

Time waits for no man and now he's nowhere near the physical specimen he was. It's be weird if he was; he's over 1000 wins to his credit and something like 1250 matches. It's immense.

[TheMessi]

Federer said the issue between 08-11 it took him a long time to accept he was getting older and had to change, he's won all those titles and all of a sudden people ae telling him to change against Djokovic, Nadal and Murray but he's ROGER FEDERER.

I get sick of commentators saying he's as good as ever, he's world number 2 so he's gonna win a lot of matches but would Federer of 03-07 lost to Andreas Seppi in the 3rd round of a slam? OR Sergei Stakhovsky at Wimbledon? Hell no.

I agree his decline by some fans is over exaggerated but so is the other end of the spectrum that he's better than ever.

Also in regards to Novak being the age Federer was when he started to 'decline' Djokovic doesn't have 22 year old Nadals and Djokovic level chasing him down! Imagine Novak now having 08-10 Nadal on his case now, or 2011 Djokovic. The margins are thin and maybe a player 5\6 years younger who is an (upcoming great) would make Novak look a little older right now.

I mean Federer in 2010 and 11 only really lost to Novak and Rafa, I think that Federer would be winning as much if not more than 14/15 Djokovic is right now considering the competition

Is that your only argument? Having a bad back or a bad day doesn't erase 6 years of improvement! I really do not understand this kind of reasoning, espcially since Fed beat Seppi again since just last week. Also happened that Seppi is not a youngster so if Fed were to lose to Seppi, it's very unlikely be due to Fed declining as Seppi woudl have declined too according to you.

So I am afraid your response lacks more substance. 2 matches in isolation are not good enough. I am sure I kind find Fed's strange losses in 04-07 too.

[Josiah Maiestas]

We shall see if in 6 years Novak is still competing the way Federer has been at this age. I think his decline will be alarming after 30.

[TheMessi]

Nish & the rest are ordinary, not worth talking about. The idea that they would figure in any big discussion at any period is ridiculous.

Federer is currently benefitting from the racquet change (oh how I wish he'd done that 5 years ago!) and again changing his game to adapt to age. However he can't play hard past 2 hours now, you could see yesterday his goose was cooked in the 3rd. It's great to see but put him against his younger self and he'd not do well at all. The younger Federer was far faster into position and able to play hard all day.

On the racquet, the backhand shanks just hardly happen any more. It's a staggering change, to the extent that I am now relaxed watching him go corner to corner with someone like Djokovic.

As for peak age etc., I await with interest the observations of fans of Murray, etc. when they are closing in on 34 regarding their favourites position.

Agree but that is exactly the problem he had in the past versus Hewitt first, then Djoko, Murray and Nadal. This is why he started to lose to this new generation. He was doing fine against everybody else before and after 2007.

What? Are you kidding?

He was awesomely fit. 5 hours against Rafa on clay in Rome showed that. And many more. I have no idea where you've pulled that idea from.

He had a crap year in 2008, results fell off a cliff against all sorts of players he wasn't dropping many games to before, but that was for a one-off reason. Since then apart from back issues that only flared up occasionally (other than 2013) he's been ok. However his results against the field fell off badly in 2008 and never really recaptured 2005-7 level. It's like Djokovic; still a great player but his annus mirabilis will always be 2011.

Time waits for no man and now he's nowhere near the physical specimen he was. It's be weird if he was; he's over 1000 wins to his credit and something like 1250 matches. It's immense.

Well likewise he lasted 5 setters v Djoko last year, Won a 5 setter v Monfils a few months ago, and so on. But you have to bear in mind the violence of rallying today compared to 2006. he lost quite a few 3 setters v Murray, Djoko and Nadal already in 2007, in fact starting in 2006 in Dubai v Nadal. Go and Check.

[temporary21]

I dont think Novak could play this way in 6 years. Whos to say though he couldn't change with the times to a more longevity based style as he gets older. Agassi did it, Pete did it (a bit), Rogers done it, Novak could do it to.

[CAS]

Nish & the rest are ordinary, not worth talking about. The idea that they would figure in any big discussion at any period is ridiculous.

Federer is currently benefitting from the racquet change (oh how I wish he'd done that 5 years ago!) and again changing his game to adapt to age. However he can't play hard past 2 hours now, you could see yesterday his goose was cooked in the 3rd. It's great to see but put him against his younger self and he'd not do well at all. The younger Federer was far faster into position and able to play hard all day.

On the racquet, the backhand shanks just hardly happen any more. It's a staggering change, to the extent that I am now relaxed watching him go corner to corner with someone like Djokovic.

As for peak age etc., I await with interest the observations of fans of Murray, etc. when they are closing in on 34 regarding their favourites position.

Agree but that is exactly the problem he had in the past versus Hewitt first, then Djoko, Murray and Nadal. This is why he started to lose to this new generation. He was doing fine against everybody else before and after 2007.

What? Are you kidding?

He was awesomely fit. 5 hours against Rafa on clay in Rome showed that. And many more. I have no idea where you've pulled that idea from.

He had a crap year in 2008, results fell off a cliff against all sorts of players he wasn't dropping many games to before, but that was for a one-off reason. Since then apart from back issues that only flared up occasionally (other than 2013) he's been ok. However his results against the field fell off badly in 2008 and never really recaptured 2005-7 level. It's like Djokovic; still a great player but his annus mirabilis will always be 2011.

Time waits for no man and now he's nowhere near the physical specimen he was. It's be weird if he was; he's over 1000 wins to his credit and something like 1250 matches. It's immense.

Well likewise he lasted 5 setters v Djoko last year, Won a 5 setter v Monfils a few months ago, and so on. But you have to bear in mind the violence of rallying today compared to 2006. he lost quite a few 3 setters v Murray, Djoko and Nadal already in 2007, in fact starting in 2006 in Dubai v Nadal. Go and Check.

after that match against Monfils he was routined by Cilic, someone he has never ever lost to. Never seen him sweat so much after that Monfils match.

Nadal has always been a match up issue, he also said Murray was a match up issue for him that he worked out. He said anyone who can find his backhand easily always caused him trouble, Nadal, Murray, Hewitt and Nalbandian.

[TheMessi]

We shall see if in 6 years Novak is still competing the way Federer has been at this age. I think his decline will be alarming after 30.

I am not saying Djoko is greater than Fed. I am not even sure Djoko now would beat 33yo Federer had the conditions been as fast as when Federer started to play tennis. What I am saying is that the conds have changed so much that the game has changed so much. Had Federer stayed his 2006 game he woudl simply be crushed in today's conditions against players who have developed a game for those conditions, without mentioning the absurd fitness they with nowadays. In the past Hewitt was fit but those guys are easily twice as quick and last longer. The dynamic of the game has clearly changed.

So saying Fed 07 would beat Djokovic today on those courts is non-sense to me.

[HM Murdock]

Federer's decline is a skewed one in some regards.

On the one hand, we have oddities like the Seppi/Robredo/Stakhovsky results.

But consider this:

Federer v Murray head to head
End of 2011: 6-8
Now: 12-11

Federer v Djokovic head to head
End of 2011: 14-10
Now: 20-18

So since turning 30, Federer has overtaken Murray in their head to head and effectively held his ground against Novak.

Federer's decline is not particularly measured in his results against the top guys. It's the odd defeats against lower ranked players that shows his consistent base level has dropped.

[TheMessi]

..after that match against Monfils he was routined by Cilic, someone he has never ever lost to. Never seen him sweat so much after that Monfils match.

Sure, cause for you Cilic did not play better in that USO than when he was 20? That's why once again fans do not take into consideration the opponent's progression. Cilic beat the guy who had beaten Djokovic, remember?

Nadal has always been a match up issue, he also said Murray was a match up issue for him that he worked out. He said anyone who can find his backhand easily always caused him trouble, Nadal, Murray, Hewitt and Nalbandian.

If it was a match up, how come Federer was often ahead in his matches versus Nadal that he lost. Dubai 06, French Open 06 to name a few. Problem is that he started to get tired and kept shanking his BH as the match went on...but very often Fed was timing the ball beautifully at first, even from his BH, before Nadal could force long rallies.

[TRuffin]

Federer is noticeably slower to the forehand corner both in defense and offense. In all aspects of his court coverage, he's just a tad late.. Those little stutter steps to put himself into position because he was on the ball so quick are now full strides and lunging to get to those same balls...

At the same time- it is correct he has improved in areas. All greats improve in certain areas with age. Jordan was a far superior jump shooter and defensive player in his early 30's than in his one on one dominating prime, Ali was far better tactically, defensively, better stamina and chin in his early/mid 30's than in his dominating prime- but neither could dominate their sport as they could in their earlier years. It's natural in areas where repetition come into play that you improve over time, natural to get better tactics and be more aware of what shots to play/take, but you also lose tiny amounts in muscle twitch, speed that simply make a difference. Also, the sport is always improving, players training at an early age to take on your style while you trained at an early age for a completely different style. The margins are so tiny at the top- it's just a fact- that an older athlete 9 out 10 times is going to have a harder time.

Federer can still hit prime levels for shorter periods of time than before, and his A level is still a beast- but several matches in a row, 5 set matches,etc- the amount of matches in his legs do come into play and it's clear he is affected.

The fact that Federer has performed so well at his age is just a testament to his greatness and the base level that he was coming from. Here are some stats I saw before the match yesterday- so add in one loss.. Look at those names of greats and what they could do past 30, and look at what Federer has done. He might not be what he once was, but even in the midst of this great competition so many talk about- he's accomplishing things that some of the all time greats all added together couldn't do past 30.

Since RG 2014, Fed is 15-2 against top 10 opponents, one of the better 17 match runs against top 10 opponents in history. He's 33 years old.


For comparison, Sampras was 6-4 TOTAL against top 10 players after turning 30.
Agassi: 31-29
Lendl: 25-19
Becker: 3-3
Edberg: 7-5
McEnroe: 11-23
Wilander: 2-8
Courier: 0-0
Federer: 47-24

Sampras + Becker + Edberg + McEnroe +Courier + Wilander= 29-43
Federer: 47-24

EVERY #1 player (13 players) since Lendl other than Agassi and their combined aggregate accomplishments after turning 30:

332 match wins
6 titles [One slam, USO]
6 other finals made
1 slam final, 2 QFs

FEDERER

231 match wins
16 titles [including Wimbledon, WTF undefeated (oldest to win), Cincy 2X, IW, Madrid, Shanghai)
13 other finals made
Slam RU, 5 slam SFs made,

[temporary21]

Todays physical style is partly Rogers own doing. People were looking to find an edge over him when he looked early unstoppable. They saw Nadal and people realised that a physical advantage was probably their best chance to have an area where they could be stronger, short of being able to find the backhand more. Roger, in other words created his own counter style, and hes had to recounter it back.

[TheMessi]

Federer's decline is not particularly measured in his results against the top guys. It's the odd defeats against lower ranked players that shows his consistent base level has dropped.

Yes, and that can be explained by his back problem in my view, not his age.

[temporary21]

Fed WAS tired for Cilic, however Cilic played brilliantly. His plan agaisnt Federer that day was the best ive seen anyone counter the new Roger game to this day. The lob was on song and his shots took the net away from him.

[temporary21]

EVERY #1 player (13 players) since Lendl other than Agassi and their combined aggregate accomplishments after turning 30:

332 match wins
6 titles [One slam, USO]
6 other finals made
1 slam final, 2 QFs

FEDERER

231 match wins
16 titles [including Wimbledon, WTF undefeated (oldest to win), Cincy 2X, IW, Madrid, Shanghai)
13 other finals made
Slam RU, 5 slam SFs made,

I would say this is a little cherry picking. Omitting Agassi is omitting the finest example of a successful player in his 30's we've had. Time is also a factor. A lot of thos players may well have retired pretty soon after turning 30. Its good research none the less, Fed is up there with Agassi for surein this one.

[TheMessi]

Todays physical style is partly Rogers own doing. People were looking to find an edge over him when he looked early unstoppable. They saw Nadal and people realised that a physical advantage was probably their best chance to have an area where they could be stronger, short of being able to find the backhand more. Roger, in other words created his own counter style, and hes had to recounter it back.

Good point but I think it is the technology that changed the dynamic of the game nowadays, not players trying to catch up Federer. New synthetic strings arrived in 2000, so a whole new generation started to exploit the best those strings could bring. I think it coincides with the arrival of that generation which learnt to play with these  strings whereas Federer learnt to play with gut strings.

This to me explains why Federer got beaten by this "new generation" earlier than he would have done had he learnt to play with new strings, or had the new generation kept on playing with natural gut.  The shots they are producing nowadays would be impossible with the old strings.

[CAS]

..after that match against Monfils he was routined by Cilic, someone he has never ever lost to. Never seen him sweat so much after that Monfils match.

Sure, cause for you Cilic did not play better in that USO than when he was 20? That's why once again fans do not take into consideration the opponent's progression. Cilic beat the guy who had beaten Djokovic, remember?

Nadal has always been a match up issue, he also said Murray was a match up issue for him that he worked out. He said anyone who can find his backhand easily always caused him trouble, Nadal, Murray, Hewitt and Nalbandian.

If it was a match up, how come Federer was often ahead in his matches versus Nadal that he lost. Dubai 06, French Open 06 to name a few. Problem is that he started to get tired and kept shanking his BH as the match went on...but very often Fed was timing the ball beautifully at first, even from his BH, before Nadal could force long rallies.

You've cherry picked a bit there, not mentioned the other match up issues and not mentioned Federer being exhausted, are you also saying Federer only beat Cilic as a kid? He beat him a few weeks before the US Open match in Toronto..

saying Cilic beat the guy who beat Novak is a poor argument, Nishikori had played Wawrinka and Raonic in back to back 5 sets then had a long 4 setter against Novak, he was also cooked. In my opinion that was a guy who was in the right place at the right time, well done for him taking it.

[bogbrush]

Todays physical style is partly Rogers own doing. People were looking to find an edge over him when he looked early unstoppable. They saw Nadal and people realised that a physical advantage was probably their best chance to have an area where they could be stronger, short of being able to find the backhand more. Roger, in other words created his own counter style, and hes had to recounter it back.

True, and it was supported by condition and equipment change. In particular the neutering of the AO and to a lesser extent, the USO.

It's always the problem for the champion - the talented younger players get to stand their game on his shoulders. When it comes time to counter back it takes time, and time is never on the side of the older champion.

[TRuffin]

I dont think Novak could play this way in 6 years. Whos to say though he couldn't change with the times to a more longevity based style as he gets older. Agassi did it, Pete did it (a bit), Rogers done it, Novak could do it to.

Peter didn't do it- look at those stats above. Agassi was a different story- for various reasons he came into his early 30' with less wear and tear than most and took advantage of his peers falling off like Pete and a couple years before the new generation took over. Not to mention the two greatest draws I've ever seen at his two AO wins. Amazing player though and the one that we can point to that has accomplished similar to Federer past 30.

Novaks problem is the little things that we can point to that has happened to Federer due to age, amount of matches, whatever, will be even more magnified with his style of play. Same with Nadal. Yes,Djoko could change his style as you say like Federer did, but Federers change wasn't an unnatural change- it played to his original strengths and versatility. IF anything he had morphed into a different style during his main years on tour than he had risen up the ranks with and has now come back to that earlier style. Djokovic is playing his natural style and what he has always played and continued to improve- it would be unnatural and quite a transition for him to change that completely to a style that would stave off age related issues. IMO.

[TRuffin]

EVERY #1 player (13 players) since Lendl other than Agassi and their combined aggregate accomplishments after turning 30:

332 match wins
6 titles [One slam, USO]
6 other finals made
1 slam final, 2 QFs

FEDERER

231 match wins
16 titles [including Wimbledon, WTF undefeated (oldest to win), Cincy 2X, IW, Madrid, Shanghai)
13 other finals made
Slam RU, 5 slam SFs made,

I would say this is a little cherry picking. Omitting Agassi is omitting the finest example of a successful player in his 30's we've had. Time is also a factor. A lot of thos players may well have retired pretty soon after turning 30. Its good research none the less, Fed is up there with Agassi for surein this one.

I talk about Agassi in another post and those aren't my stats so I wouldn't have ignored him. still- you can't ignore combined efforts of 13 #1 players doesn't add up to what Federer has done since age 30.. those guys played plenty of matches after 30 that would show where their level was. You are right- Agassi and Federer are alone in the modern era for performing at this level. I would argue that given the amount of matches Fed had played, the constant time on tour compared to Agassi, and yes- the level of competition Federer has dealt with after 30 (Agassi got a taste of that for a year or two when Federer came into his own on tour), that Federer's time past 30 is even more impressive.

[TheMessi]

saying Cilic beat the guy who beat Novak is a poor argument, Nishikori had played Wawrinka and Raonic in back to back 5 sets then had a long 4 setter against Novak, he was also cooked. In my opinion that was a guy who was in the right place at the right time, well done for him taking it.

But did you watch the Fed v Cilic match? Weren't you impressed by Cilic? Fed may have been tired but Cilic was playing great regardless.

[TRuffin]

Todays physical style is partly Rogers own doing. People were looking to find an edge over him when he looked early unstoppable. They saw Nadal and people realised that a physical advantage was probably their best chance to have an area where they could be stronger, short of being able to find the backhand more. Roger, in other words created his own counter style, and hes had to recounter it back.

True, and it was supported by condition and equipment change. In particular the neutering of the AO and to a lesser extent, the USO.

It's always the problem for the champion - the talented younger players get to stand their game on his shoulders. When it comes time to counter back it takes time, and time is never on the side of the older champion.

Spot on- every generation is working on solving the problem of the greats before them. Federer trained and learned a game for the generation before him and the conditions in play then, Nadal, Djoko and others learned a game based on Federer and the conditions that were starting to come into play, and now a generation is coming into their own that will used Djoko and Nadal and current conditions as their measuring stick. The greats like Federer, dJokoivc, and Nadal will and do hold off those younger generations or at least thrive amongst them, but at some point- the future always becomes the present and the present always becomes the past.

[temporary21]

I dont think Novak could play this way in 6 years. Whos to say though he couldn't change with the times to a more longevity based style as he gets older. Agassi did it, Pete did it (a bit), Rogers done it, Novak could do it to.

Peter didn't do it- look at those stats above. Agassi was a different story- for various reasons he came into his early 30' with less wear and tear than most and took advantage of his peers falling off like Pete and a couple years before the new generation took over.   Not to mention the two greatest draws I've ever seen at his two AO wins.   Amazing player though and the one that we can point to that has accomplished similar to Federer past 30.

Novaks problem is the little things that we can point to that has happened to Federer due to age, amount of matches, whatever, will be even more magnified with his style of play. Same with Nadal.   Yes,Djoko could change his style as you say like Federer did, but Federers change wasn't an unnatural change- it played to his original strengths and versatility. IF anything he had morphed into a different style during his main years on tour than he had risen up the ranks with and has now come back to that earlier style.   Djokovic is playing his natural style and what he has always played and continued to improve-  it would be unnatural and quite a transition for him to change that completely to a style that would stave off age related issues.  IMO.

I remember reading Agassis book, ad he talked a lot about how he would play a rally more on his own terms as he got older. His style became more about moving his opponent and refusing to go off the baseline. Pete decided to become almost exclusively a serve volleyer, which didnt work out as well, but he did try.

Look up a video on youtube, or you might remember it "Federer vs Djokovic 2007 Montreal". Novak is capable of playing just like Agassi, and sort of used to, hitting the ball much flatter and harder. As he gets older hell probably lean back on that sort of style, in a way federers gone back to his old style too.

[temporary21]

Of course. Playing past 30 isnt just a struggle for fitness and moving your game forward, its interest. Pete and a lot of those number ones simply didnt want to play much anymore after 30. Federers interest hasnt wained much, wihich explains those numbers a little bit.

[TheMessi]

Spot on-    every generation is working on solving the problem of the greats before them.   Federer trained and learned a game for the generation before him and the conditions in play then,   Nadal, Djoko and others learned a game based on Federer and the conditions that were starting to come into play, and now a generation is coming into their own that will used Djoko and Nadal and current conditions as their measuring stick. The greats like Federer, dJokoivc, and Nadal will and do hold off those younger generations or at least thrive amongst them, but at some point- the future always becomes the present and the present always becomes the past.

But I am not sure I agree with this. Again, it's not the player who leads the way for future players, it's the technology and/or courts conditions.

If it was a player leading, then followers would only beat one type of player but could not beat another top player with a different style. Nadal  beat not only Federer but everybody else too at first, so did Djokovic then.

Federer woudl have developed Nadal's (or Djoko's) game to beat Pete and all serve and volleyers but he beat them at their own game playing like them....cause imo he had the same technology.

Coric, Kyrgios or Kokkinakis do not play to beat Djokovic, they have to beat the rest of the field first...to have a chance to play the top guys. That is why it is clearly the technology which leads how to play. In the 90s the big frames made everybody play Serve and volley. Nowadays conditions make every body play long rallies and train very hard.....until some youngsters manage to win on those conditions Serve and volleying. Not going to be easy for them.

-------

https://www.606v2.com/viewtopic.forum?t=58303

[Sponsored content]