Wimbledon 2014: MOTD Day 13 Sun 06/07/2014 - Gentlemen's Final

That. Was. Crazy!

Fantastic feds!

NOOOOO!
At hte most curcial part of the match, he misses an overhead

Gutted!

i cant believe how roger blew that last game!!!         
i am sooooooo upset

Congrats novak!   

Why didn't feds play like that for the first 3 sets though!??! SO much better

This equals my dissapointment after the 2008 final.

Congrats Nole, well done.  He was a bit better than Fed for most of the match, so deserved it in the end.  I would have preferred if Fed had tried to play more aggressively right from the start, but who knows where that would have led anyway.

Sadly, this match also tells me it will be very hard for Roger to win more slams from here on.  This Wimbledon has worked out really well for him - no hard matches going into the final, and only had to play one of the big four to win it.  And still, he came second best.

i really believe that this was feds last legitimate chance to win a major...

Veejay wrote:i really believe that this was feds last legitimate chance to win a major...

Yes, that's why this is so sad

gutted....he really had a chance in the 5th set
he shouldnt have raced that last service game like that

on the plus side,novak becomes no 1 again

@ruffin...
remember how ruffin said fed would be out of the top 10 a few years ago...roger is back at n0 3 again!  

summerblues wrote:Congrats Nole, well done.  He was a bit better than Fed for most of the match, so deserved it in the end.  I would have preferred if Fed had tried to play more aggressively right from the start, but who knows where that would have led anyway.

True.. the return game was the difference, Fed just didn't create enough chances on the return for the first 3 sets.. Costly. I also didn't like this chip-n-charge approach against Djokovic, he with his double handed bh is easily going to pick a pass. so many passing winners from Djokovic. 

Fed's serving kept him in for 4 sets, but faltered just at the worst possible time.

And I so want to see the rules change regarding the 5th set. its so much of an advantage serving 1st in the 5th. Serve should change ends after every 6 games. They do it in table tennis in the deciding set. Why not in tennis.

gallery play wrote:

Veejay wrote:i really believe that this was feds last legitimate chance to win a major...

Yes, that's why this is so sad

Look what it took to beat him though- at nearly 33 and with a diminished foredhand!!  That was a legendary match...

about your comment on the real tim ruffin predicting on bleacher that Federer would be out of the top 10 years ago. Fed has proven time and time again that the haters are fools.  He had nothing to prove.. Sure, they'll use this loss to chip away at him, but anyone with a brain has to respect what Federer brought to the court and the fight and raise of level to get to the fifth.
Ruffin actually paid a backhanded compliment to Fed once.. In an article about Fed's greatest performances, several of them were losses- esp to Nadal, and Ruffin said  Nadal and the others had to raise their levels to amazing heights to beat Federer.  It's so true.  It's take a heck of a lot to beat a healthy Fed even at 33..   

It does bother me that he's come out on the losing end of many of these epic matches..  His 5th set record is lesser than it should be.  It's strange because clearly the guy has legendary fight and inner strength. He's answered the bell so many times with crazy resolve.. Maybe it is that to beat him some of these other greats have to go to a place that is rare and were able to.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

summerblues wrote:Congrats Nole, well done.  He was a bit better than Fed for most of the match, so deserved it in the end.  I would have preferred if Fed had tried to play more aggressively right from the start, but who knows where that would have led anyway.

True.. the return game was the difference, Fed just didn't create enough chances on the return for the first 3 sets.. Costly. I also didn't like this chip-n-charge approach against Djokovic, he with his double handed bh is easily going to pick a pass. so many passing winners from Djokovic. 

Fed's serving kept him in for 4 sets, but faltered just at the worst possible time.

And I so want to see the rules change regarding the 5th set. its so much of an advantage serving 1st in the 5th. Serve should change ends after every 6 games. They do it in table tennis in the deciding set. Why not in tennis.

I do think the chipncharge did have a cumulative effect on Djoko though.  Federer used it on a lot of points where it didnt' matter a whole lot... but during that crunch time in the 4th it paid off..   Sometimes having to continue to guess takes it toll on the opponent.  

However, it was actually one of the worst approach games I've seen from Fed in a while.. almost reminded me of last year where he went in on the wrong shot or blindly. He has some moments of brilliance, but he often came in on the wrong shot.

Federer made a few errors in his net timing.  He came in on some silly silly shots that were obviously going to pass him.  But overall his net play was decent.  It asked questions.  It was his service game that let him down a little.  The odd lapse.

Disappointed doesn't come close to describe how I'm feeling right now. It felt like the 2008 match all over again. So close.

(Though I hasten to add that the 2008 disappointment was a millions time worse than this.)

Why couldn't Novak have beaten Rafa in Paris and let feds win at wimby?

luvsports! wrote:Why couldn't Novak have beaten Rafa in Paris and let feds win at wimby?

+1

FedererKing wrote:Federer made a few errors in his net timing.  He came in on some silly silly shots that were obviously going to pass him.  But overall his net play was decent.  It asked questions.  It was his service game that let him down a little.  The odd lapse.

agreed...
truth is novak didnt win the match..it was fed who lost it

Sorry but I don;t feel like posting much on this match. Fed actually played badly. He was average in the first set and terrible after that.

Just to say that on those conditions a good pair of legs and a DHBH make the SHBH look like obsolete.

Federer is simply playing in the wrong era nowadays....but he still does a good job cause he is 3 times more talented than the rest of the field. However it is not good enough. Today he did not look as old as his game!

These two never fail to deliever, this match was an instant classic. What a pity Fed is on the losing end of most of these classics when he is the reason that make these matches classics. Imagine we would have got a Djokodal final instead.        Federer is just that good to push a match to a fifth set, which he then loses in a rather unspectacular fashion.

I saw that match lagging a bit behind, so no way to comment during the match. Feel very different to Tenez, I feel the need to comment when I saw such a heartbreaker. It's a kind of therapy. Nothing against Djokovic, but a guy with his strengths/ weaknesses as a two-times Wimbledon champion feels wrong. Ok, Nadal is a two-times Wimbledon champion too, but his movement on grass was actually good, though I haven't watched him much, since I cannot stand watching a whole lot of Nadal. So I was still happy for Novak     , though my sadness for Fed quite outweighed that emotionally. I envy NITB a bit there who probably feels the opposite way.  

Both seemed to start very nervous, but Novak was able to hold very comfortably while Fed had to fight him of in his service games. In the beginning, Novak actually outaced Fed! Novak was able to force some long rallies on Fed service games, Fed unable to shorten the points, which was clearly his aim rushing the net. But he got burnt there very quickly with the approach shots just sitting up there, giving Novak a lot of time to pick his spot. He didn't miss much and hit around 15 passing shot winners. So there was that strategy.

Against the flow of play Fed managed to pull out the first set TB. That was hopeful, but quickly turned around again with the odd loose service game. Second set gone, since he couldn't impact Novak's service games.

The third set was make or break for Fed in my view, since he was never to win in five sets against Novak. That tiebreak was winnable for both, but with Fed missing a forehand that he makes 99% in other cases, good night, set Djokovic.

Fourth set - such a rollercoaster. In the beginning it looked as if Fed was already low on energy when Novak managed to break him early. Fed with nothing to lose looked a lot more dangerous than before. The way he wrestled his way back into the set showed immense strength and resilience. I was completely in awe there. Novak was clearly rattled, missed a forehand very similar to the one Fed missed in the tiebreak.

The fifth set was always going to be Novaks. Yes, Fed had a BP, but unless Novak had broken down mentally then, he would have broken back and broke again. I knew it was over for Fed in his second to last service game when he started to have difficulty to hit first serves and missed shots that he usually doesn't miss like that botched overhead. All Novak really had to do then was to push the ball back one more time and very fittingly the game ended on a Fed error (don't remember which wing).

Agree with Tenez that Fed's game looked so outdated at times. I thought the same in the Wawrinka game already. He just seemed so powerless and is only 3 years older than Wawrinka. But what can I do, I completely fell in love with that style of game, knew I was in for some heartbreak then.  Rather stupid to let that happen in 2013, should have gone to the winners.  Feels a bit like unrequired love, pretty painful. And like unrequired love, it is such a bittersweet sadness, like the end of a really good book that makes you cry.  It is such a great story though, losses like this one make it even more compelling!

Tenez wrote:Sorry but I don;t feel like posting much on this match. Fed actually played badly. He was average in the first set and terrible after that.

Just to say that on those conditions a good pair of legs and a DHBH make the SHBH look like obsolete.

Federer is simply playing in the wrong era nowadays....but he still does a good job cause he is 3 times more talented than the rest of the field. However it is not good enough. Today he did not look as old as his game!

Fed has lost his speed, power and accuracy to some extent. Even if he is 100% fit, he may just not be able to play like he did before. He does very good for an almost 33 yo, but against a Multi slammer, much younger and physically supreme player like Djokovic he needed to be playing lights out or the opponent playing poor. Neither happened yesterday.

Fed tried, he did and it took the very best out of Djokovic to win it and so closely. What else can Fed do?

I think it's obvious that a 2004-7 Federer, or 2008-2010 Fed... would KILL Djokovic on grass.  If he can almost do it at 33, pretty sure he could do it at 25.

FedererKing wrote:I think it's obvious that a 2004-7 Federer, or 2008-2010 Fed... would KILL Djokovic on grass.  If he can almost do it at 33, pretty sure he could do it at 25.

totally agree,fed in his prime would still be untouchable in this era 
he came damn close to beating the no1 player in a grand slam yesterday,it was just a break of serve that decided and you cant deny the fact that it was fed who lost the match rather then novak who won it
novak wasnt the outright winner,it was pretty even for most of the match
some things that really bugged me about that match was that roger could have mixed his serve up more,even conners mentioned that he had serve out wide 8 times in a row- way too predictable especially for one of the best returners the game has ever seen 
on several occasions the court was open and he decided to go behind djokovic every single time,a tactic which only paid off about twice throughout the match
fed on the run cant hit a winner anymore,cross court or down the line he always goes for too much
and once again,when the court was open he decided to return cross court rather then down the line 
these are the shot selections which i believe really cost him the match,it gave djokovic the ability to put a lot of pressure on roger serve games

Agreed with the above. Also wondered why he didn't use the short slice some more to bring Novak in on his terms. Iirc he used that tactic once and won the point. (Novak netted) All in all not a very inspired performance, but one that was impressive for the pure grit and will-power.

Autumnleaf wrote:... Feels a bit like unrequired love, pretty painful. And like unrequired love, it is such a bittersweet sadness, like the end of a really good book that makes you cry.  It is such a great story though, losses like this one make it even more compelling!

Now i understand why your name is Autumnleaf!  

I like your input being covered with nostalgia. Like it should after the final we've seen

Veejay wrote:

FedererKing wrote:I think it's obvious that a 2004-7 Federer, or 2008-2010 Fed... would KILL Djokovic on grass.  If he can almost do it at 33, pretty sure he could do it at 25.

totally agree,fed in his prime would still be untouchable in this era 
he came damn close to beating the no1 player in a grand slam yesterday,it was just a break of serve that decided and you cant deny the fact that it was fed who lost the match rather then novak who won it
novak wasnt the outright winner,it was pretty even for most of the match
some things that really bugged me about that match was that roger could have mixed his serve up more,even conners mentioned that he had serve out wide 8 times in a row- way too predictable especially for one of the best returners the game has ever seen 
on several occasions the court was open and he decided to go behind djokovic every single time,a tactic which only paid off about twice throughout the match
fed on the run cant hit a winner anymore,cross court or down the line he always goes for too much
and once again,when the court was open he decided to return cross court rather then down the line 
these are the shot selections which i believe really cost him the match,it gave djokovic the ability to put a lot of pressure on roger serve games

This is big speculation. Grass doesn;t mean much anymore. Djko, Murray and Nadal the 3 greatest retrievers won it 5 times in total in the last 7 years!!! Federer was struggling badly back in 07 v Murray, Djoko and nadal even though they were far, very far, from their peak and the level they are playing now. Fed certainly did not play his best yesterday....but it would have been good enough to beat  anybody of the 2007 era in 3 straight sets. However I have seen fed this year play well enough to beat anybody, including Djoko's best (Dubai for instance, or even IW, despite his loss). Yesterday he did not play that well. Agreed...but again, I douby it was down to age....just yet. So imo you are making a very dubious assumption.

You are also ignoring that Fed only lost a set and was broken once on his way to the final. he lost sets and was broken by much crapper player in 2005-07. So again I do not follow the logic here.

@GP I feel exposed now.  You are right, though these things are ever not quite clear on the mind, more sensibility than sense.

To add to the romanticism of it all:

http://www.tennisfrontier.com/news/atp-tennis/alive-verse/

Loved that poetic take on the final especially the verse it is written around: " a poet who could enamel the inside of a raindrop"  (from a piece about Emily Dickinson, can empathize with the author's envy, great line!)

Tenez wrote:(...) Yesterday he did not play that well. Agreed...but again, I douby it was down to age....just yet. (...)

I'm curious now, so allow me asking what do you think the reason could be?

I am not sure but he says so himself "I did not play my very best" (which is an understatement considering he did not want to take things away from Djoko. He played well in Dubai for instance, even IW (or was it Miami), He played well on his way to the final. He surely cannot have aged since. He dismissed Rao quicker than Djoko would have done, most likely.

Problem is Djoko has a pacier and safer BH allowing him to keep the centre of the court a bit more and made Federer run a fair share in those first sets. That could be why Fed lost some accuracy and punch on his FH, like he often does before finding his second breath...in the fifth.

One thing I noticed for sure is that Djoko played a very solid match. The conds helped him too. he had time to spin that ball and find angles, and he has seriously improved since 2007. The conds (big balls) certainly help a good returner over a good server. Would the 2007 Federer had won that match? Maybe, maybe not. He lost a set to Ferrero, which I am pretty sure he would not have lost this year, he was run very close by Nadal who again has improved considerably since 2007…and Djoko even more.

What’s amazing is that Fed was close despite not playing his best. Maybe he was tired after 2 weeks of Wimby. But it’s not so much his fitness that was exposed, but the fact that on those slow courts, his BH is still a liability as soon as a rally goes on. Having 20+ rallies on grass is simply absurd…but shows how much physical the game has gone since 2003.

What you are forgetting is that at his age, consistency and fine tuning take a big hit.  He can be good one day, and average the next.  Age takes away optimal fitness and it makes you blow hot and cold.  It isn't a surprise that he was about to be the OLDEST wimb champion of the Open Era.

Federer of 2004-7 would have dismantled Djokovic.

FedererKing wrote:What you are forgetting is that at his age, consistency and fine tuning take a big hit.  He can be good one day, and average the next.  Age takes away optimal fitness and it makes you blow hot and cold.  It isn't a surprise that he was about to be the OLDEST wimb champion of the Open Era.

Federer of 2004-7 would have dismantled Djokovic.

This is a fan's response I am afraid. yes consistency can take a hit but experience and improved timing coudl easily compensate.

The fact is even on grass in 2006 and 2007 at his peak time he won a set 60 and lost the next one versus a moonballer....so consistency within a match was not great either. Had he converted the break point in the 5th, you woudl not have had to say anything. The fact of the matter is that Fed went through the draw as easily as in 2007....just that in 2014 we have a much more solid Djoko. The problem is not age but the fact that Djoko is really fast around the court (like no-one was in 2005-7) and has a solid BH exposing Federer (again like no-one could in 2005-7).

It's as simple as that.

In 2007 he also lost a set v Ferrero and won one close in a TB. Now tell me do yuo really think Ferrero 07 is better than Djoko 14?

Tenez wrote:

FedererKing wrote:What you are forgetting is that at his age, consistency and fine tuning take a big hit.  He can be good one day, and average the next.  Age takes away optimal fitness and it makes you blow hot and cold.  It isn't a surprise that he was about to be the OLDEST wimb champion of the Open Era.

Federer of 2004-7 would have dismantled Djokovic.

This is a fan's response I am afraid. yes consistency can take a hit but experience and improved timing coudl easily compensate.

The fact is even on grass in 2006 and 2007 at his peak time he won a set 60 and lost the next one versus a moonballer....so consistency within a match was not great either. Had he converted the break point in the 5th, you woudl not have had to say anything. The fact of the matter is that Fed went through the draw as easily as in 2007....just that in 2014 we have a much more solid Djoko. The problem is not age but the fact that Djoko is really fast around the court (like no-one was in 2005-7) and has a solid BH exposing Federer (again like no-one could in 2005-7).

It's as simple as that.

Does that mean nobody had the talent to do so? (nalby comes to mind) Or the fitness? Or the nous?

He lost against someone he is a terrible match up against (and in 5 sets and in slower conditions). And that was after mono(?).

You cannot seriously think that a 33 year old can play as good as his 23-27 year old self and as consistently (in terms of fitness especially)?  Federer did not play anywhere near the level of 2006.  Go and watch the final and notice the sheer number of winners, and consistent forehands.  And not just that, the fact he was unbeaten at Wimbledon for 5 straight years.  Do you believe the Federer of 5 years ago had ANY chance of doing that?

There is a reason that only a very small number of players win slams after the age of 30.  The facts are all there and they are clear.  If age doesn't matter, you have to explain why there is a massive correlation between age and Slam titles saying that it does.

And if you do believe age has nothing to do with it, can you tell me what age you believe a player starts to decline?  I am assuming that you believe there is some cut off point?  If not late 20s, then when?  40?

Mono was in 2008.
That aside, players are not static, their tennis is continually improving, It HAS to because if it doesn't they get left behind.
The tour is always moving on, although to us who watch it every day is almost imperceptible unless we follow particular players with extra attention.
Did anyone notice how muscular and defined Federer's legs were this Wimbledon?
He couldn't help himself and mentioned the "athletic" final straight in his post-match interview with Sue Barker...

luvsports! wrote:

Tenez wrote:

FedererKing wrote:What you are forgetting is that at his age, consistency and fine tuning take a big hit.  He can be good one day, and average the next.  Age takes away optimal fitness and it makes you blow hot and cold.  It isn't a surprise that he was about to be the OLDEST wimb champion of the Open Era.

Federer of 2004-7 would have dismantled Djokovic.

This is a fan's response I am afraid. yes consistency can take a hit but experience and improved timing coudl easily compensate.

The fact is even on grass in 2006 and 2007 at his peak time he won a set 60 and lost the next one versus a moonballer....so consistency within a match was not great either. Had he converted the break point in the 5th, you woudl not have had to say anything. The fact of the matter is that Fed went through the draw as easily as in 2007....just that in 2014 we have a much more solid Djoko. The problem is not age but the fact that Djoko is really fast around the court (like no-one was in 2005-7) and has a solid BH exposing Federer (again like no-one could in 2005-7).

It's as simple as that.

Does that mean nobody had the talent to do so? (nalby comes to mind) Or the fitness? Or the nous?

Well yes I guess one needs the talent plus the solid shots from both wings. Nalbandian comes to mind but Nalbandian's lacked movement so he would also have been exposed as they would make him run more that he'd wanted to.

The furture generation will take care of Djoko and Nadal. No doubt about it. But Federer's talent simply is not enough nowadays simply because by sending Djoko to corners won't save him from doing his own share of the running. This string technology as given a new weapon for those who are in the trameline....whereas before they would simply be in the death zone there. We saw Federer chip n charge on Djoko's BH and fed was simply passed systematically with great angles and deeping shots....that was simply impossible in the past with natural strings and faster balls. Up to 2007 only Nadal had that faculty to use the spin to good effect. It was power spin. Djoko doesn't use power so much but better, safe placement.

To be fair Djoko in 2007 at only 20 was already troubling Federer. This is why I completely disagree with FK. He had already beaten him twice, and had a very tight 3 setter at the USO. & years later, you would expect Djoko to be much more solid and skilled....and he is. Yet Federer gave a very close run.....while not playing his very best as he says. On faster conds he even beat him this year in Dubai and got him close in IW. I don't want to mention MC as Djoko was clearly injured.

If anything Fed proved last Sunday he could still beat the best of Djoko. That's quite an achievement for someone who learnt to play tennis on such different court conds, technologies, and training regime. All the players of the same age as Fed have given up or dropping very fast down the ranking.

FedererKing wrote:He lost against someone he is a terrible match up against (and in 5 sets and in slower conditions). And that was after mono(?).

You cannot seriously think that a 33 year old can play as good as his 23-27 year old self and as consistently (in terms of fitness especially)?  Federer did not play anywhere near the level of 2006.  Go and watch the final and notice the sheer number of winners, and consistent forehands.  And not just that, the fact he was unbeaten at Wimbledon for 5 straight years.  Do you believe the Federer of 5 years ago had ANY chance of doing that?

There is a reason that only a very small number of players win slams after the age of 30.  The facts are all there and they are clear.  If age doesn't matter, you have to explain why there is a massive correlation between age and Slam titles saying that it does.

And if you do believe age has nothing to do with it, can you tell me what age you believe a player starts to decline?  I am assuming that you believe there is some cut off point?  If not late 20s, then when?  40?

Your main argument is that he was winning then and losing now. That only tells us about Federer, not the opposition. Nadal was reaching finals then but losing early now. What's the difference? Nadal going down? aging at 28? or his opposition getting better? What when next year Djoko will lose to Rao, Dimi and Kyrgios? Will it be Djoko aging? simply because he is losing.

You are comparing a time in 2007 when Djoko was already running "peak" Federer close at the age of 20!!!!!!!..7 years later "peak" Djoko is hammering all the players he  could lose to in 2007 and still fighting hard v Federer.

And Federer is still going through the field as easily as 2007, if not more easily....if it was not for Djoko.

Can't you see that?

And yes, Nadal is going down.  28 is old in tennis terms for someone who is a grinder of Nadal's kind (as in pure defence and nothing much else).   Most players begin decline at his age.  And they are usually finished by 33.  Federer isn't finished because he is a 1-off, but he is definitely feeling the effect of age (and is almost finished).  You only have to go back and watch 2004-7 and see how much better his serving, consistency and forehand were.

You didn't answer my questions, though.

I though Fed's serving was excellent all Wimbledon.

He is facing a different game and different balls coming back now, FK.

Gonzo's and Blake's FH for example were very different from muscled, power-spin FHs of mainly Nadal, but then just about everyone else, too in smaller measure (btw, really liked that expression you used to differentiate it from the classic flat/top-spin FH, Tenez).
Players are also evolving and improving it, not only using it for safe percentage shots but attacking, as well.
Not necessarily better, but pretty tough to handle.

They are hard to control and also very physical. How he is able to still do it esp with his SBH is a miracle!

And to add to the notorious "he's too old" argument, to be perfectly honest, despite the wear and tear and many extra years on tour, I genuinely don't think Fed is much older than Nole, tennis wise, definitely not the six calendar years that separate them, maybe 2-3 max.
This physical era is ageing players far quicker and in more than one way.

It's a bit of unchartered territory to comment on, as most of us know little of what current medicine is able to do for players. 
We have written Nadal off more times than we'd like to remember...and he keeps coming back!
On those same knees.

Fed's only serious problem was his back injury last year, but he seems to have put it behind him, or at least keep it under control.

I expect him to build on this Wimbledon final and keep getting better, tbh.
He's only had a few months of quite interrupted schedule with his new racquet, and he's done very well, esp bearing in mind what happened last year.
He caught up, though and that's the main thing.

I believe if it wasn't for the interrupted clay season, he'd've possibly won the final on Sunday.


Obviously, physical freshness is not coming easily to him now, but it's the same for Nole. He, too is having to play the same, very physical opposition, and it's (please excuse my strong language here) bloody tough!

FedererKing wrote:And yes, Nadal is going down.  28 is old in tennis terms for someone who is a grinder of Nadal's kind (as in pure defence and nothing much else).   Most players begin decline at his age.  And they are usually finished by 33.  Federer isn't finished because he is a 1-off, but he is definitely feeling the effect of age (and is almost finished).  You only have to go back and watch 2004-7 and see how much better his serving, consistency and forehand were.

You didn't answer my questions, though.

But what's the point of me going back in 2007 and watch Federer when you fail to see that Federer was already having trouble versus young Djoko, Murray and Nadal back then? You are dismissing 7 years of improvement from Djoko and the rest of the field.....That does not leave me much to argue against.

noleisthebest wrote:And to add to the notorious "he's too old" argument, to be perfectly honest, despite the wear and tear and many extra years on tour, I genuinely don't think Fed is much older than Nole, tennis wise, definitely not the six calendar years that separate them, maybe 2-3 max.
This physical era is ageing players far quicker and in more than one way.

It's a bit of unchartered territory to comment on, as most of us know little of what current medicine is able to do for players. 
We have written Nadal off more times than we'd like to remember...and he keeps coming back!
On those same knees.

Fed's only serious problem was his back injury last year, but he seems to have put it behind him, or at least keep it under control.

I expect him to build on this Wimbledon final and keep getting better, tbh.
He's only had a few months of quite interrupted schedule with his new racquet, and he's done very well, esp bearing in mind what happened last year.
He caught up, though and that's the main thing.

I believe if it wasn't for the interrupted clay season, he'd've possibly won the final on Sunday.


Obviously, physical freshness is not coming easily to him now, but it's the same for Nole. He, too is having to play the same, very physical opposition, and it's (please excuse my strong language here) bloody tough!

yep...though I think Federer has a max of 12 months in him. As much as I think players plateau between 28-32, maybe 33, the decline is pretty quick after that. Sure he will be able to play nearly as well at 33/34 than at 28 over one match...but not over a whole tournament...less so over a season.

Interesting discussion, but in the end impossible to come to a conclusion here. Don't agree with the statement of the game "improving". I'd say more neutrally "changing", because "improvement" is too much of a judgement in my view. It's clear that the physical/ athletic elements of the game take supremacy now which is a sad development imho.

Concerning age: the exact effects will be very difficult to find out because there are so many things to factor in. But surely the usual low age of GS winners is not connected to physical decline at age 28 (!). That's way too early and not supported by any studies about human physiology. Agassi made the US Open final at age 35!

http://www.faqs.org/sports-science/A-Ba-and-timeline/Aging-and-Athletic-Performance.html

"The physical peak for most humans, in most sports, is between 25 and 35 years of age; during this peak period, the well-conditioned athlete can create a confluence of muscular strength, peak cardiovascular and oxygen transport, speed and reaction time, and mental capabilities (including the ability to deal with competitive pressures), all bound together by a desire to succeed."


Beyond 35-40 however, there are discernible/ measurable reductions in maximum heart rate, VO2 max and lean body mass, testosterone level that will reduce athletic performance. The degree of these changes depends on the individual and it surely won't be quick (!), but at the highest level even one percent counts.

Players DO improve during their entire career. That's the name of the game.
Federer, Djokovic, Nadal, Murray...are all better players now than in 2007.
Their games keep maturing and adding to their shots arsenal.

Physicality is another, separate aspect of tennis evolution in general.
It was caused by current slow playing conditions and it "just" means players need more great shots to win points, which, of course is not that great as it shortens the quality of their longevity on the tour.

If Nadal had been out of the picture, we would have had fresher players playing longer.
Again, the reason why I called him death of tennis many years ago.

Nothing can be done to undo that influence and impact he was allowed to have, unfortunately.
Racquet/strings technology would have probably developed tennis into spin baseline game anyway, but it would not have been so physical and damageing.

noleisthebest wrote:(...1) Their games keep maturing and adding to their shots arsenal.

(2) Physicality is another, separate aspect of tennis evolution in general.
Iw was caused by current slow playing conditions and it "just" means players need more great shots to win points, which, of course is not that great as it shortens the quality of their longevity on the tour.

(...3)
Racquet/strings technology would have probably developed tennis into spin baseline game anyway, but it would not have been so physical and damageing.

ad1) They add shots and improve them. They don't use other shots as often anymore and deteriorate with them, like e.g. flat shots, volleys, because the development of the modern game doesn't reward using those shots much.

ad2) It also means, that aggressive game, flat shotmaking is not rewarded, if the agressor does not possess incredible power to hit through. Even then it's a tough ask because the risk for this kind of game is very high when would-be-winners are retrieved and the defender can either directly counter-punch or ask the agressor to try to hit another winner.

ad3) the only solution to that would be restrictions on technology used which could happen if the popularity of the sport will be endangered by the kind of game that is promoted now.

AL,
do you play tennis?

noleisthebest wrote:AL,
do you play tennis?

at a very low level. I am here to learn.