Has Federer Finally Peaked?

by noleisthebest Sat Feb 17, 2018 8:10 pm

In short, can he play any better than he is?

For me, it’s difficult to see how can he improve any of his shots any more.

He is basically doing anything he likes with the ball, only tired legs can fail him now.

by Daniel Sat Feb 17, 2018 8:40 pm

He played better than this in 2006 - as all the videos, results, and tournament wins show. That was his peak. This is a man with a lot of experience, a very good serve, and playing the greatest tennis of any post 30 year old.

by noleisthebest Sun Feb 18, 2018 3:14 pm

I dunno, he is dominating the field same as back in 2006.

by gallery play Sun Feb 18, 2018 4:46 pm

Daniel wrote: This is a man with a lot of experience, a very good serve, and playing the greatest tennis of any post 30 year old.

And a much better BH..

by Daniel Sun Feb 18, 2018 5:29 pm

gallery play wrote:
Daniel wrote: This is a man with a lot of experience, a very good serve, and playing the greatest tennis of any post 30 year old.
And a much better BH..

No. Not at all. You can go back to 2010 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbTU27FeNtg and see whole tournaments where it was just as good, and it was excellent in 2006 as well. The videos are all there. He was quicker in 2006, had a very good BH, a better forehand, his serve was even more consistent, and he was fitter.

2006 Fed beats 2018 Fed all over. Players don't peak at 36 years of age - that's not how human biology works. And it's also why fed skipped every clay event last year.

Honestly, the "neo backhand" bullshit is just that. Bullshit. It's being said by people who don't bother watching his old matches.

by noleisthebest Sun Feb 18, 2018 5:31 pm

Daniel wrote:
gallery play wrote:
Daniel wrote: This is a man with a lot of experience, a very good serve, and playing the greatest tennis of any post 30 year old.
And a much better BH..

No. Not at all. You can go back to 2010 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbTU27FeNtg and see whole tournaments where it was just as good, and it was excellent in 2006 as well. The videos are all there. He was quicker in 2006, had a very good BH, a better forehand, his serve was even more consistent, and he was fitter.

2006 Fed beats 2018 Fed all over. Players don't peak at 36 years of age - that's not how human biology works. And it's also why fed skipped every clay event last year.

Honestly, the "neo backhand" bullshit is just that. Bullshit. It's being said by people who don't bother watching his old matches.

You cannot be serious.

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Mon Feb 19, 2018 8:52 am

Daniel wrote:He played better than this in 2006 - as all the videos, results, and tournament wins show. That was his peak.

I don't think he played better in 2006. Back then too he had to overcome tough matches where opponents ran him close.

Fed 2006: Stronger body to sustain longer matches, faster avg serve speed.
Fed 2017: Better at absolutely everything else.

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Mon Feb 19, 2018 9:03 am

noleisthebest wrote:
Daniel wrote:
gallery play wrote:
Daniel wrote: This is a man with a lot of experience, a very good serve, and playing the greatest tennis of any post 30 year old.
And a much better BH..

No. Not at all. You can go back to 2010 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbTU27FeNtg and see whole tournaments where it was just as good, and it was excellent in 2006 as well. The videos are all there. He was quicker in 2006, had a very good BH, a better forehand, his serve was even more consistent, and he was fitter.

2006 Fed beats 2018 Fed all over. Players don't peak at 36 years of age - that's not how human biology works. And it's also why fed skipped every clay event last year.

Honestly, the "neo backhand" bullshit is just that. Bullshit. It's being said by people who don't bother watching his old matches.

You cannot be serious.

Fed's BH is a weapon now, back in 2006 it was mostly to keep him in the point.

by luvsports! Mon Feb 19, 2018 10:47 am

I have no idea how anyone can say his weak bh with a 90sq inch frame is better than now.

by gallery play Mon Feb 19, 2018 11:16 am

Recently i watched a clip of the full USO 2004 final: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgPBK6L0vEM

It's amazing how Hewitt went from being a nightmare opponant to a bit-player within 1,5 years. Federer looks awesome in this clip and if you didn't know any better you might say he never played as dominant as in that period. But the thing is (and that's where Tenez really has a legit point): if the best the competition has to offer is Hewitt, well surely even slam finals wil look like demonstration matches.
The Seppi i saw last saterday would have beaten 2004 Hewitt

by Tenez Mon Feb 19, 2018 11:18 am

And considering that everybody was attacking his BH like mad and sent 80% of balls on his weaker side, it was a real liability. He did very well to keep up with the RRunners. Having a stronger BH made him twice as good as in the past. His problem was only to remain fresh for the business end of tournaments. Something he coudl have never done with his weaker BH as many could force him to run more than he wished to.

But we know Daniel doesn;t wish to see reality at times. I have exposed that a long time ago.

by noleisthebest Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:23 pm

gallery play wrote:Recently i watched a clip of the full USO 2004 final: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgPBK6L0vEM

It's amazing how Hewitt went from being a nightmare opponant to a bit-player within 1,5 years. Federer looks awesome in this clip and if you didn't know any better you might say he never played as dominant as in that period. But the thing is (and that's where Tenez really has a legit point): if the best the competition has to offer is Hewitt, well surely even slam finals wil look like demonstration matches.
The Seppi i saw last saterday would have beaten 2004 Hewitt

Fed’s bh looks so weak compared to now in that clip.
And Hewitt a slo-mo version of today’s baseline retrievers.

Plus, Fed looks more graceful and smoother now, I think.

So maybe there is hope for Shapo! Winking

by noleisthebest Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:26 pm

Tenez wrote:And considering that everybody was attacking his BH like mad and sent 80% of balls on his weaker side, it was a real liability. He did very well to keep up with the RRunners. Having a stronger BH made him twice as good as in the past. His problem was only to remain fresh for the business end of tournaments. Something he coudl have never done with his weaker BH as many could force him to run more than he wished to.

But we know Daniel doesn;t wish to see reality at times. I have exposed that a long time ago.

He certainly did.

I will also add that this new Prostaff is not just a bigger sweetspot for him, but the balance od the racquet is different from precious one.

He gets about 20-30% power on the BH from it for free. And that offers a lot of stability he needed all those years to turn tables on Nadal.

But the old racquet was nicer to swing...was perfect for that “older” era.

by Tenez Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:42 pm

The question we could ask Daniel is if fed's BH is not as good as in the past, and of course his fitness is much worse, what makes him now a more successful player v nadal and Murray and how come he cuts through the whole field at slams better than in his hey days?

by bogbrush Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:55 pm

I was watching the Miami 2005 final v Nadal at the weekend on Sky and I was struck by how little Federer sliced. He was coming over the top almost all the time. And he was standing close to the baseline. It was very AO 2017 - like.

It's made me wonder whether the slicing was something that came in later, perhaps because he found it tough to maintain the drive all the time.

Anyway, it was a surprise, which is weird since I thought I had the clearest recollection of his games evolution but then again he's been around so long and your mind can play tricks like this, especially when we talk about these things so much.

by gallery play Mon Feb 19, 2018 2:19 pm

I think Tony Roach added some pragatism to his game, which resulted in him playing less extravagant. Maybe because winning RG was a major goal. Roche probably told him to play with more patience (Miami 2005 Roche only recently became his coach)

I never saw Roche as the right coach for him, despite the record year 2006.

by noleisthebest Mon Feb 19, 2018 3:18 pm

gallery play wrote:I think Tony Roach added some pragatism to his game, which resulted in him playing less extravagant.

Good that you remember all those details.
It’s not easy to be anyone’s coach, let alone Fed’s.

I think I did a thread here with what we would do if we were his coach once. Laugh

And when Ljubicic came on the scene...who could have predicted we’d see Fed blossom like this!

I liked the uber attacking (SABR) plus elegance Edberg brought back to Fed after Annacone, he did a great job.

Ljubicic built on it easily with the new racquet.

gallery play wrote:
Maybe because winning RG was a major goal. Roche probably told him to play with more patience (Miami 2005 Roche only recently became his coach)

But Fed was always a great match player.
Super aggressive yet never reckless.

gallery play wrote:
I never saw Roche as the right coach for him, despite the record year 2006.

Who was your favourite?

by noleisthebest Mon Feb 19, 2018 3:33 pm

bogbrush wrote:I was watching the Miami 2005 final v Nadal at the weekend on Sky and I was struck by how little Federer sliced. He was coming over the top almost all the time. And he was standing close to the baseline. It was very AO 2017 - like.

I must see that famous match one day!

If he indeed was hitting his BH mainly with topspin, why did he stop doing it?

by Daniel Mon Feb 19, 2018 4:04 pm

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
Daniel wrote:He played better than this in 2006 - as all the videos, results, and tournament wins show. That was his peak.

I don't think he played better in 2006. Back then too he had to overcome tough matches where opponents ran him close.

Fed 2006: Stronger body to sustain longer matches, faster avg serve speed.
Fed 2017: Better at absolutely everything else.

It doesn't matter what you think. The videos and results are there for everyone to see. If he's better now, why is he skipping the entire clay season? You aren't making any sense. His forehand was better in 2006, he was faster, his serve was better, he was fitter. And he did it all with a smaller racquet. As for tough matches... Seriously? This is Generation Never. Have you seen how useless the opposition is? No Murray, No Djok; Nadal beaten off clay, virtually. No one stepping up. He's just beaten a woeful Dimitrov 6-2 6-2. Another beating for the supposed next generation.

The 2006 Fed beats 2018 hands down. The stats are there. The videos are there. And he competed on clay and reached the final of the FO.

by bogbrush Mon Feb 19, 2018 5:30 pm

noleisthebest wrote:
bogbrush wrote:I was watching the Miami 2005 final v Nadal at the weekend on Sky and I was struck by how little Federer sliced. He was coming over the top almost all the time. And he was standing close to the baseline. It was very AO 2017 - like.

I must see that famous match one day!

If he indeed was hitting his BH mainly with topspin, why did he stop doing it?

I think that was what gallery play was pointing at.

by gallery play Mon Feb 19, 2018 5:47 pm

I never saw Roche as the right coach for him, despite the record year 2006.
Who was your favourite?

Hard to tell, he won slams with them all, bar Edberg, but who obviously still was a proper coach for him.

If i had to pick one i'd say Peter Carter (died in 2002), he played a big role in Fed's succes. Under Carter's regime he transformed from a lazy and hot-headed boy into a determined pro.

But to me the most important person is Pierre Paganini, his long lasting personal trainer.

by noleisthebest Mon Feb 19, 2018 7:26 pm

Yes, Paganinni, what a name!

I read somehere he is the one that strongly advises Fed not to play on clay any more, as it requires unpredictable movement of knee parts in order to stabilise it during sliding.

by Jahu Mon Feb 19, 2018 9:40 pm

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/12/sports/tennis/roger-federer-atp-finals.html

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Tue Feb 20, 2018 7:02 am

Daniel wrote:It doesn't matter what you think. The videos and results are there for everyone to see.

1. What I think matters just as much as what you think. Your credentials as a tennis expert is only as good as mine. Unless it isn't because you are a tennis pro/coach. So are you?

2. Do you see 'everyone' agreeing with you in this forum? Actually you are alone on this point. Where are these 'everyone' to backup your claim.

Have you seen his interviews about what he talks. Clearly not.

He is managing his schedules better. He needs to at this age. Don't you agree? He wants to prolong his career and that requires managing his schedules in a better way, get his priorities clear and listen to his body and not to force it. His game is not best suited for clay and doesn't want lengthy duels with plenty of roadnunners (and the ultimate one) thereby risking his chances for Wimbledon.

This doesn't make any sense?

His forehand was better in 2006, he was faster, his serve was better, he was fitter. And he did it all with a smaller racquet.

1. His Fh wasn't better. definitely not. His timing now is better on a lot of variety of balls, the ones he would shank at times.

2. Even if I agree he was faster, he certainly wasn't a better defender back then. He is much better even on that front. Mabe he could run 100m faster then compared to now, but tennis is much more complicated that running in a st. line.

3. His avg server speed should be higher in 2006. A younger stronger body. i'm sure his avg ground stroke speed on the Fh would be marginally higher too. But now he has more variety on serve and FH.

4. Fitter: Agree on this. you can't compare 24-25 yo with 37 year olds. He needs more recovery time.

5. He did those with a smaller racquet doesn't mean he would have certainly done better with a new bigger one. Switching racquets is lot more complicated Bigger racquets also existed in 2006 and some of the likes of Nadal were using it too. Its not a given that you will play better with a better/bigger racquet. If I get the racquet of Federer will I start playing like him just because with my own cheap racquet, I can beat most of my fellows at club.

Have you seen how useless the opposition is? No Murray, No Djok; Nadal beaten off clay

1. Have you seen the opposition back in when he won AO2006? Look at the seeds and you'll know. And still he was losing sets to those opponents and winning a lots on TBs.

2. Murray played in AO2017, W2017. Djokovic played in AO17,W17, AO18. If they don't beat their 'useless' opponents to face Fed, how do you say they are better to beat Fed. And don't even count Murray, Fed of late has not been losing to him at all.

3. Nadal is beaten off clay? what's new here, he was always beaten off clay, but not much by Fed. AO09, 12, 14 were not played on clay, were they?

No one stepping up.

Everyone is stepping up. Including Federer, he is GOAT not for no reason. Don't you see any changes in the way he plays now. 'Everyone' is seeing.

The 2006 Fed beats 2018 hands down. The stats are there. The videos are there.

What stats are there? If you think the current opposite is useless then the same can be applied then too. So why is old Fed better? The old Fed couldn't manage 3 consecutive wins against Nadal even on bo3, this one can do 5+ including slams. The old Fed was almost certain to lose if he gets behind in a slam against Nadal. This Fed can pull it away from Nadal with sheer force.

This Fed is mentally stronger to face his most fierce rival. The old Fed was full of doubts.

by Daniel Tue Feb 20, 2018 7:32 am

I don't think anything. I know. I look at the video evidence and the results. You can argue all you like, but you can't argue with 3 slams + 1 final three times (something he can no longer do - despite Murray and Djokovic being out of the picture - and Nadal out of the picture on grass) or that Federer now skips clay (something he didn't used to do) or with human biology.

The facts are - you are wrong.

Lol... Old Fed full of doubts. Dear god, do you honestly believe that? You honestly believe a man full of doubts would break Sampras' record of Slams? What planet are you inhabiting? It almost sounds like Tenez Land! Doh

You let me know when current Fed ends the year 95-5, and with 12 titles, eh? Winking

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Tue Feb 20, 2018 8:43 am

Sheer arrogance with zero substance. I answered you to the point. Come back with your answers to back up your 'I know' claim. Else they are abstract.

YYou let me know when current Fed ends the year 95-5, and with 12 titles, eh

In 2006, No Murray, No Djokovic. Nadal beatable off clay. Rest all useless opposition. The stats are there. How does this sound now. Your own argument against you. Winking

Lol... Old Fed full of doubts. Dear god, do you honestly believe that?

Yes. He was full of doubts, as he used to run of of ideas facing a opponent like Nadal. See his interviews, see what other tennis experts say. He was doubting the stability of his BH, and hence would often slice. The result: Slicing had no impact on Nadal's FH and he still would stay on top in the point. This approach was never going to beat Nadal except on some good days.

Why he lost the RG 2008 final so miserably despite reaching the final so dominantly. Why you think he lost the W08 final? Why you think he cried after losing AO09. Why he lost RG2006 final?

Get out of your "I know' chair and try to see.

by legendkillar Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:12 am

For me I think the more important evolution in his career was the development of an all court game. Granted the racquet change has shored up the BH, but for me for him to at 28 to start coming into the net more frequently and look at closing points and games off quicker has a huge step and change. Annacone and Edberg deserve some credit for playing a part in that evolution. He may not have been winning Slams, but he was still contending the later part of them.

When I look at the 04-07 and 17-current spells, its like watching 2 different players. The latter being much more economical and efficient but also having much more variety. He has taken his game to another level. It takes a special athlete to be able to change and adapt their game and still achieve high levels of success.

Daniel does have a point around the current competition. 2 of his big rivals are sidelined and that does have a small influence on how he has been able to achieve his current results.

I have no complaints about that. Just how it goes in sport. Make hay while the sun shines.

by Tenez Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:49 am

legendkillar wrote:For me I think the more important evolution in his career was the development of an all court game. Granted the racquet change has shored up the BH, but for me for him to at 28 to start coming into the net more frequently and look at closing points and games off quicker has a huge step and change. Annacone and Edberg deserve some credit for playing a part in that evolution. He may not have been winning Slams, but he was still contending the later part of them.

The opposite is also true. in 2007 (at 26?) he changed his game to make it less risky to enable him to stay with the RRuners. His FH became less potent but safer with added spin. This is when he realised he could not beat this then newgen by blasting them off the court. I remember I was quite disappointed to see in 2007 those new spinny shots. That I guess allowed him to win a few more slams.

When I look at the 04-07 and 17-current spells, its like watching 2 different players. The latter being much more economical and efficient but also having much more variety. He has taken his game to another level. It takes a special athlete to be able to change and adapt their game and still achieve high levels of success.

Agree but I even saw an improved player from 2009/10 to the then 2004/7. This is in fact when I realised that in spite of playing better he was winning less, cause of that newgen.

Daniel does have a point around the current competition. 2 of his big rivals are sidelined and that does have a small influence on how he has been able to achieve his current results.

I'd say one of his big rival is certainly missing. The other Murray was actually no more a rival since Fed changed racquet head size and in fact was not much of a rival even before that. The time Murray was a rival was actually the period Federer was younger and Murray not nearly as good as when turned number 1 (yet beaten constantly by Fed). So Daniel doesn't even have a point!

by Tenez Tue Feb 20, 2018 10:14 am

bogbrush wrote:I was watching the Miami 2005 final v Nadal at the weekend on Sky and I was struck by how little Federer sliced. He was coming over the top almost all the time. And he was standing close to the baseline. It was very AO 2017 - like.

Did you notice above all how Nadal has no OCD there and plays sometimes within 16s and 17sec. Ends up losing the last 6 games in a row. This is I guess what triggered this in-between-point time management from Toni. From then on Nadal never won a slam within the rules!

by bogbrush Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:30 am

Certainly, his service preparation was if anything over-rapid. The OCD idea was always a lie.

by AceofDeath Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:43 am

Federer was obviously better on clay 10+ years ago because he had much quicker feet however his backhand was a level below what it is now.

His forehand was more flashy back then but less solid and his serve is clearly better now. Look at his last 4-5 matches with Murray to see how much trouble Murray had in returning his serve compared to their first 10 or so meetings.

by noleisthebest Tue Feb 20, 2018 12:00 pm

AceofDeath wrote:Federer was obviously better on clay 10+ years ago because he had much quicker feet however his backhand was a level below what it is now.

Fresher and younger maybe, but I disagree they were quicker.
I think over the years, his footwork got better and more fine tuned.

It has been immaculate since AO 17.

I suppose that’s where Paganini deserves some kind of a trophy for the fantastic job he has done with developing Fed’s fitness and especially footwork.

It’s a beauty in its own right.

AceofDeath wrote:
His forehand was more flashy back then but less solid and his serve is clearly better now. Look at his last 4-5 matches with Murray to see how much trouble Murray had in returning his serve compared to their first 10 or so meetings.

I think his fh was different because the racquet was different, and the style of play of everyone else.

I am a little surprised how lomg it took him to get his FH to its present level with the new racquet. Maybe he was working predominantly on the bh first,

To me, it’s a less swingy racquet than the previous one, but more potent, and he has just begun to tap into that power with it now.

So plenty of exciting tennis to come from a healthy Fed! diva

by Tenez Tue Feb 20, 2018 1:54 pm

I think Federer strings his racquet too tight. Not something I'd have dared to say a while back but now that I know he can make huge decision mistakes, I say it!

by noleisthebest Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:17 pm

Has he always had that weight, or is it just with the new racquet?

by Daniel Tue Feb 20, 2018 5:10 pm

Daniel wrote:

You let me know when current Fed ends the year 95-5, and with 12 titles, eh?

by noleisthebest Tue Feb 20, 2018 5:24 pm

Daniel wrote:
Daniel wrote:

You let me know when current Fed ends the year 95-5, and with 12 titles, eh?

What has that got to do with anything?

Quality does not equate quantity.

by Daniel Tue Feb 20, 2018 10:33 pm

Why do you think scientific evidence and statistical evidence and hard facts are less than your feelings? Doh

by Tenez Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:08 pm

Daniel wrote:Why do you think scientific evidence and statistical evidence and hard facts are less than your feelings?

So according to you....Fed may have been that successful in 2005/06/07 only because Pete, Edberg and Becker retired.

You don't make sense and your ego is bigger than your brain.

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Wed Feb 21, 2018 8:11 am

Daniel wrote:Why do you think scientific evidence and statistical evidence and hard facts are less than your feelings?

1. In any of your comments, kindly point what exactly you said falls in category 'scientific evidence'.

2. The only statistical evidence you are clinging to is 95-5. Fed doesn't play that many tournaments since a long time now. But he also had only 4 losses last year, with 7 titles, 0 losses and 2 titles till now in 2018. If 2006 if you look at how sets won/loss %, it will be worse than 2017-18. And in 2006 if you look how many of those sets were won by fed in TB ( which is indication that your opponent wasn't far behind), the 2017-18 performance is way better.

3. hard facts? do point them too.

Answer to the point, don't bring abstracts.

by Daniel Wed Feb 21, 2018 1:28 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaEoHakrST8

Check some of those out. He can't run like that anymore. Some of those returns and hits were also with the smaller racquet - which, by the way, is a choice. Smaller racquet heads have advantages but also take more precision. He was forced to change precisely because he is not as accurate as he used to be.

But, look, you're the ones arguing with 95-5 and actually, you know, being able to compete on clay.

You seem to want it both ways

1. Smaller racquet, 95-5, 3 slams and one final (3 times!).
2. Larger racquet, no clay matches, inferior match wins, 2 slams (2017), and no Djok or Murray. Generation useless.

So, presumably, you are arguing that 1 is true only because of weak opposition (ffs) and yet you then have to argue by default that the current opposition is better than 2006. Really? Get real. Big Grin

Aside from the fact you are arguing with human biology and science, and the overwhelming stats (just when did that cons weeksn1 record happen, HMmmmmm), you are also forced to pretend that the opposition Fed is facing is way better. And we can all use our eyes to see the WEEDS - THE BRAINLESS LITTLE WEEDS - we currently have on tour. There are signs that one or two younger players will finally be useful... but not in the last 5 years.

Has Federer Finally Peaked? RuXOA1X

in red: Reality of peaking
in blue: "Da opposition b so much bttr. Fed peakin!"

by luvsports! Wed Feb 21, 2018 2:44 pm

A 4 minute clip doesn't really add much.

by Daniel Wed Feb 21, 2018 2:54 pm

luvsports! wrote:A 4 minute clip doesn't really add much.

That's OK, I've added more. Thanks for your valued and shitty input. Laugh

And, yes, it did add much. You can clearly see how much fitter and faster he used to be.

by luvsports! Wed Feb 21, 2018 3:34 pm

You are such an angry man Laugh

I feel sorry for you.

by luvsports! Wed Feb 21, 2018 3:36 pm

Actually, I don't.

by noleisthebest Wed Feb 21, 2018 4:26 pm

luvsports! wrote:You are such an angry man
I feel sorry for you.

I can see Daniel’s “passion” in his convictions, and I appreciate all the effort he put in the chart, but the chart is useless, Daniel.

It’s not about numbers and stats when you compare a player across several eras.
There is a lot more and it’s neither linear nor one dimensional.

Fed has always been good, just that now he does everything better than before.

Especially volleying.

When he turned up, S&V-inf was a norm, and now it’s almost extinct.

Now why is that?

by Tenez Wed Feb 21, 2018 4:34 pm

Daniel wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaEoHakrST8

Check some of those out. He can't run like that anymore.

Are you serious? You just shot yourself in the foot. 90% of these shots in your clip are when he is past 30! not when he was 25/26 Doh

by Daniel Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:06 pm

luvsports! wrote:You are such an angry man
I feel sorry for you.

The problem is you think you know me from a forum. Fool. Laugh

Don't misinterpret my lack of respect for you, and harsh language, for anger. I am here quite calm. And I don't care what you think, so piss off. Magic

PS Chew on Trump. Big Grin

by Daniel Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:07 pm

Tenez... I refer you again to Usain Bolt. When's he gonna beat that WR time of his. Surely, he should be faster now?

Tenez

Are you serious? You just shot yourself in the foot. 90% of these shots in your clip are when he is past 30! not when he was 25/26

Except I am talking about specific points. Holy cow, can't you work out which? It isn't hard to see which ones he's running like a lunatic in and which he isn't.

When he turned up, S&V-inf was a norm, and now it’s almost extinct.

Now why is that?

Look at his matches in 04-07 and you'll find he does it an awful lot back then. More than you remember. The difference is he could also hang in back then on the baseline for extended rallies. Something he can no longer do. Which is also why today he will totally suck on clay.

by luvsports! Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:15 pm

a) age 31 vs Berdych (with old racquet)
b) 35 vs Isner at US exhibition
c) 33 vs Murray
d) 35 vs Rafa
e) 28 vs Davydenko
f) 28 vs Djokovic
g) 35 vs Raonic
h) 28 vs Delpo

None of these clips are remotely close to 2006, Daniel. It is from 2009-2017.

by luvsports! Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:15 pm

Daniel wrote:
luvsports! wrote:You are such an angry man
I feel sorry for you.

The problem is you think you know me from a forum. Fool. Don't misinterpret my lack of respect for you, and harsh language, for anger. I am here quite calm. And I don't care what you think, so piss off.

Fishing

by Sponsored content

Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30