Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Keywords

GOAT  

Latest topics
» Basel 2017
Today at 7:19 pm by Jahu

» The doping program joke of the ITF!!!
Today at 5:31 pm by Jahu

» The Ultimate GOAT List
Today at 2:48 pm by noleisthebest

» Race to London
Today at 10:59 am by Tenez

» Fight for #1
Yesterday at 10:54 pm by naxroy

» Women's (WTA) WTF 2017
Yesterday at 7:43 am by noleisthebest

» Stefanos Tsitsipas
Sat Oct 21, 2017 4:04 pm by noleisthebest

» This Is What A Feminist Looks Like
Fri Oct 20, 2017 2:56 pm by bogbrush

» Players popularity - What makes it?
Thu Oct 19, 2017 11:34 pm by Tenez

October 2017
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031     

Calendar Calendar

Affiliates
free forum


How would Federer have coped if he was as good as he was in 2005 according to Tenez's theory

View previous topic View next topic Go down

How would Federer have coped if he was as good as he was in 2005 according to Tenez's theory

Post by DECIMA on Sun Oct 26, 2014 11:11 am

Now one of the places me and Tenez disagree is on when Federer reached his prime, and whether he's still improving.

I think he reached his peak and prime in around his mid-twenties, but when he started getting close to 30 and then past 30 he started declining. Not rapidly declining, but gradually declining. I do however acknowledge that his poor performance in 2013 was largely due to injury, but I think he's declined nonetheless.

Tenez thinks Federer is still improving as a player, not just he's using better technology, but he's nominally improved. Although Federer's recovery time is now longer as he's older, according to Tenez; his actual skills have improved.

If we take Tenez's view, I have a question to Tenez and people who have this opinion: would Federer really have done worse this year if he had been on 2007 form.
Don't get me wrong, he's had some impressive results (in particular: Dubai, Halle, Cinci, Shanghai); but if Tenez is right, he may have won less then that in his 2007 form.
This seems like a bizarre opinion to hold, and frankly one I'd expect someone to hold if they dislike Federer and are trying to put him down; as well as being an inaccurate one.

DECIMA

Posts : 4429
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: How would Federer have coped if he was as good as he was in 2005 according to Tenez's theory

Post by Daniel on Sun Oct 26, 2014 1:32 pm

For once, I actually agree with you.  The notion that 2014 Federer is even close to 2007 is as far away from the truth as you are likely to get.  You can clearly see from his results alone that he is a worse player.  I mentioned this to Tenez and he said that the opposition has gotten better.  If this is the case, why would Nadal be losing to Rank 100s three years in a row at Wimbledon?  Or have rank 100s improved to the level of Nadal in only a few years? Federer's net game and strategy may be helping, but he's had to deploy that because he can no longer hang in the rallies. He's now falling back on Plan B and all his talent to stave off Father Time. He knows as soon as a long rally ensues, he is at a disadvantage these days.  He's a step slower, his reaction times are slightly worse, and his recovery time is longer. 

There is no two ways about it, and it is a scientific biological fact that a human body starts to degrade with age.  Every single tennis player that's ever lived, and will ever live, will perform worse in their 30s to their 20s, and worse in their 40s to their 30s.

I'd like to think that Tenez will own up and admit he is wrong when he sees Nadal, Djokovic, struggling to win anything when they are 30+.  But I fear instead, the excuse will be that the new crop are better.  So basically, by 2050, Superman will be playing.

Daniel

Posts : 3095
Join date : 2013-11-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: How would Federer have coped if he was as good as he was in 2005 according to Tenez's theory

Post by summerblues on Sun Oct 26, 2014 1:43 pm

Am I imagining things or did we have this debate before?

summerblues

Posts : 2984
Join date : 2012-05-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: How would Federer have coped if he was as good as he was in 2005 according to Tenez's theory

Post by DECIMA on Sun Oct 26, 2014 1:57 pm

summerblues wrote:Am I imagining things or did we have this debate before?
We've had the debate on whether Federer is better before, but I can't remember discussing the consequence of that on what impact it makes on his results comparatively.
Maybe you've debated it, but I haven't ?

DECIMA

Posts : 4429
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: How would Federer have coped if he was as good as he was in 2005 according to Tenez's theory

Post by DECIMA on Sun Oct 26, 2014 1:59 pm

FedererKing wrote:The notion that 2014 Federer is even close to 2007 is as far away from the truth as you are likely to get.  You can clearly see from his results alone that he is a worse player.
He hasn't massively declined, but he's certainly not as good as he was during his twenties. He's had some good results this year as I noted, but he's also lost 2 Slam matches in straight sets, 1 to Gulbis in 5; Wimbledon was only where he looked like he had a great chance.
Surely he'd do better if he was in 2007 form ?

DECIMA

Posts : 4429
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: How would Federer have coped if he was as good as he was in 2005 according to Tenez's theory

Post by Tenez on Sun Oct 26, 2014 11:14 pm

Kim Jong-Un wrote:Now one of the places me and Tenez disagree is on when Federer reached his prime, and whether he's still improving.

I think he reached his peak and prime in around his mid-twenties, but when he started getting close to 30 and then past 30 he started declining. Not rapidly declining, but gradually declining. I do however acknowledge that his poor performance in 2013 was largely due to injury, but I think he's declined nonetheless.

Tenez thinks Federer is still improving as a player, not just he's using better technology, but he's nominally improved. Although Federer's recovery time is now longer as he's older, according to Tenez; his actual skills have improved.

If we take Tenez's view, I have a question to Tenez and people who have this opinion: would Federer really have done worse this year if he had been on 2007 form.
Don't get me wrong, he's had some impressive results (in particular: Dubai, Halle, Cinci, Shanghai); but if Tenez is right, he may have won less then that in his 2007 form.
This seems like a bizarre opinion to hold, and frankly one I'd expect someone to hold if they dislike Federer and are trying to put him down; as well as being an inaccurate one.
I don;t think Federer is improving now. Well he certainly does on some aspects of the game. Volleying, anticipation and more importantly timing. But as I said, his recovery time gets worse by the week. Therefore the advantage gain in shot making is mostly lost in having a stiff body and taking longer to warm up.

Maybe it's fair to say he has less good days but his good days are in my view MUCH better than 2007. I think that today's Federer woudl easily beat Djoko and Nadal (on clay) of 2007. In fact he would crush them...cause he has learnt all those years how to play them and with his bigger racquet frame Nadal woudl really have struggled with Fed's current pace from both sides.

Djoko is much better than 2007....only biased people woud deny that...Yet Federer can still beat him nowadays whereas it was also pretty close back then.

Nadal has immensely improved too after 2007. His BH is so much stronger now than then but more importantly his depth of shots are much better and more powerful than ever (in 2013 certainly) and Fed still ran him close with a bad back in Cincy (or Montreal can't remember).

So the question is why was fed so dominant in 2007 as compared to now? ...and the response is simple..... Look at who he was playing back then! people he woudl still not lose to today!

Tenez

Posts : 17175
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: How would Federer have coped if he was as good as he was in 2005 according to Tenez's theory

Post by DECIMA on Sun Oct 26, 2014 11:52 pm

How would Federer have done this year if he was at his 2007 level you feel ?

DECIMA

Posts : 4429
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: How would Federer have coped if he was as good as he was in 2005 according to Tenez's theory

Post by Tenez on Sun Oct 26, 2014 11:59 pm

Not sure...he has done very well this year too. 2007 he had a close encounter on grass v Nadal and had a very close 3 setter v 2007 Djoko at the US0. Gonzo had set point in that first set of the AO final and he got beaten v Nadal in the FO.

So I think 7 years on the rest of the field is much better than then. And I can see Fed would have probably struggled more this year had he not progressed since 2007. I am actually pretty sure of that. On the plus side he would have been fresher now but less equipped to beat the better guys.


Tenez

Posts : 17175
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: How would Federer have coped if he was as good as he was in 2005 according to Tenez's theory

Post by Tenez on Mon Oct 27, 2014 12:15 am

in 2007 he won 68 matches and lost 9. Gonzo 1, Canas 2, Volandri 1, Nalbandian 2, Nadal 2, Djokovic 1
In 2014 he won 61 and lost 10 so far. So pretty comparable.

Again the field is much tougher now than then. and consider also that at the beginning of the year he had still some back issue and adopting a new racquet...had his twins in the middle of the year so certainly disrupted his clay season (loss to Chardy for instance).

So what he misses is a couple of slams..but his end of season is as good as 2006 or 2007...despite a stronger opposition.

It's such a shame Fedkink is not admitting to it! Winking

Tenez

Posts : 17175
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: How would Federer have coped if he was as good as he was in 2005 according to Tenez's theory

Post by Tenez on Mon Oct 27, 2014 1:05 am

Just saw this clip about today's match.

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

Fed's shots are simply more powerful while safer than before. Before he had days where he was in the zone and as good as that but I think now his BH is clearly better and he can find better angled with his FH.

Tenez

Posts : 17175
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: How would Federer have coped if he was as good as he was in 2005 according to Tenez's theory

Post by truffin1 on Mon Oct 27, 2014 2:29 am

All I know is fed is the goat.  Whether he's as good as 2007, nearly as good, or worse-  what he's doing now- in this era, conditions, technology and what I know first hand and in depth of athletes in their 30's- is otherworldly.

truffin1

Posts : 861
Join date : 2012-10-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: How would Federer have coped if he was as good as he was in 2005 according to Tenez's theory

Post by DECIMA on Mon Oct 27, 2014 5:07 pm

truffin wrote:All I know is fed is the goat.
I disagree with your opinion here, but this thread is not about that anyway; it's about him now compared to how he was before.

DECIMA

Posts : 4429
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: How would Federer have coped if he was as good as he was in 2005 according to Tenez's theory

Post by DECIMA on Mon Oct 27, 2014 5:08 pm

Tenez wrote:Just saw this clip about today's match.

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

Fed's shots are simply more powerful while safer than before. Before he had days where he was in the zone and as good as that but I think now his BH is clearly better and he can find better angled with his FH.
But maybe we can put that down to change in technology rather than change in level of tennis ?
Also, surely you can see his forehand is not as consistent as before ?

DECIMA

Posts : 4429
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: How would Federer have coped if he was as good as he was in 2005 according to Tenez's theory

Post by Daniel on Mon Oct 27, 2014 5:23 pm

Kim Jong-Un wrote:
truffin wrote:All I know is fed is the goat.
I disagree with your opinion here, but this thread is not about that anyway; it's about him now compared to how he was before.

If you think it's Nadal, then you really need help because:

Australia 4-1
Wimbledon 7-2
US 5-2
ATP 6-0
Weeks No.1 = 302

And Nadal losing in his prime to rank 100s three times in a row at Wimbledon.

When you compare his resume to Fed's, your argument is like wet toilet roll.

Daniel

Posts : 3095
Join date : 2013-11-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: How would Federer have coped if he was as good as he was in 2005 according to Tenez's theory

Post by DECIMA on Mon Oct 27, 2014 5:41 pm

FedererKing wrote:
Kim Jong-Un wrote:
truffin wrote:All I know is fed is the goat.
I disagree with your opinion here, but this thread is not about that anyway; it's about him now compared to how he was before.

If you think it's Nadal, then you really need help because:
Federer is statistically better. If you want to have a debate with me on who is the greatest player of all time, I wouldn't mind, start another thread.
On here though I will stick to what the topic is.

DECIMA

Posts : 4429
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: How would Federer have coped if he was as good as he was in 2005 according to Tenez's theory

Post by sphairistike on Mon Oct 27, 2014 7:38 pm

Interesting read, especially what Nole thinks!

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2014/10/44/Paris-Monday-Djokovic.aspx

In particular, this:

“I never ruled him out,” Djokovic told media on Monday at the Palais Omnisports in Paris. “I always thought that he's one of the best players in the world, and he keeps on proving to everybody that he deserves to be there. I have lots of respect for what he does. I don't think that age is an issue for him. As a matter of fact, I think he's playing some of his best tennis this year.

sphairistike

Posts : 501
Join date : 2012-08-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: How would Federer have coped if he was as good as he was in 2005 according to Tenez's theory

Post by Tenez on Mon Oct 27, 2014 9:32 pm

Kim Jong-Un wrote:
Tenez wrote:Just saw this clip about today's match.

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

Fed's shots are simply more powerful while safer than before. Before he had days where he was in the zone and as good as that but I think now his BH is clearly better and he can find better angled with his FH.
But maybe we can put that down to change in technology rather than change in level of tennis ?
So you recognise his shots are better then? technology certainly help but going to the net and volleying like he does has a lot more to do with eye/hand coordination, anticipation and reflexes than racquet technology. he does something which most of us AND the rest of the tour thought impossible just 6 months ago: winning SVing.

Also, surely you can see his forehand is not as consistent as before ?
No I can;t actually. Especially if I compare it to his FH v Nadal. Nowadays they all topspin mad so the FH is always going to be difficult to time nowadays (at shoulder level). Very different than when you were hitting your FH at waist level.

Tenez

Posts : 17175
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: How would Federer have coped if he was as good as he was in 2005 according to Tenez's theory

Post by Tenez on Mon Oct 27, 2014 9:38 pm

sphairistike wrote:Interesting read, especially what Nole thinks!

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2014/10/44/Paris-Monday-Djokovic.aspx

In particular, this:

“I never ruled him out,” Djokovic told media on Monday at the Palais Omnisports in Paris. “I always thought that he's one of the best players in the world, and he keeps on proving to everybody that he deserves to be there. I have lots of respect for what he does. I don't think that age is an issue for him. [size=13]As a matter of fact, I think he's playing some of his best tennis this year

Yes but Fedking knows better. Winking

Tenez

Posts : 17175
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: How would Federer have coped if he was as good as he was in 2005 according to Tenez's theory

Post by Daniel on Mon Oct 27, 2014 11:22 pm

Tenez wrote:
sphairistike wrote:Interesting read, especially what Nole thinks!

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2014/10/44/Paris-Monday-Djokovic.aspx

In particular, this:

“I never ruled him out,” Djokovic told media on Monday at the Palais Omnisports in Paris. “I always thought that he's one of the best players in the world, and he keeps on proving to everybody that he deserves to be there. I have lots of respect for what he does. I don't think that age is an issue for him. As a matter of fact, I think he's playing some of his best tennis this year


Yes but Fedking knows better. Winking

Djokovic is talking nonsense, and is a current player making one statement.  Find me 100 former professionals, and let's take a vote.  Federer won 0 Slams this year.  He won three of four 2004-7, and still won a lot after this point.  Take a look at this and admit to yourself that age is the reason:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Federer#Grand_Slam_tournament_performance_timeline

There is literally no other logical reason for him to go from that record, to the later part of that time line.  No player in the history of Open Era has played better at 33 than their 20s.  Federer is a one-off that he is playing to the level he is, but it's clearly not near his best.

Also, I asked this question before and got no reply... why so few tennis players reaching Slam finals / winning at age 33+?  In last 20 years how many have?  Nearly 0.  Why?

Daniel

Posts : 3095
Join date : 2013-11-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: How would Federer have coped if he was as good as he was in 2005 according to Tenez's theory

Post by Tenez on Tue Oct 28, 2014 12:22 am

Told you! You know better Than Djoko, Toni, fed, Wilander and everybody else who plays the game seriously!

FK we know your point. You point is all about achievements but you are disregarding a pretty important factor in tennis: Who is/was the opposition. According to your theory the best player ever is rene Lacoste....cause the others only managed to win when he declined!

I'll give you one point, Federer is less likely to recover in time from 5 setters than when he was 27...however even that is difficult to gauge as every rally now is more intense and exhausting than in 2007. Hence, even the very fit players can't play and strings matches like Djoko in 2011 or Nadal in 2010. Way too hard nowadays.

Tenez

Posts : 17175
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: How would Federer have coped if he was as good as he was in 2005 according to Tenez's theory

Post by DECIMA on Tue Oct 28, 2014 12:53 am

Tenez wrote:According to your theory the best player ever is rene Lacoste....cause the others only managed to win when he declined!
No, no; that is clearly not what FedKing is trying to say.
As older players decline after peak years, younger ones gets better as they get to their peak; and the combination of these two means players above 30-35 are generally less successful than 25-30, what FK is not saying is that the generations after Lacoste just got worse and worse.

DECIMA

Posts : 4429
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: How would Federer have coped if he was as good as he was in 2005 according to Tenez's theory

Post by Daniel on Tue Oct 28, 2014 1:10 am

Exactly.  Also, there has been some evolution in skill level, but slow (and more driven by technology).  However, this evolution did not happen in the space of 5 years, as it would have had to have done to make Tenez theory hold up.  In fact, probably would have had to happen in less than 2 years if you go up and look at Fed's win timeline (or any player's for that matter).

What's more likely is that age matters. And it does.  Especially over 30, which is why hardly any bugger that age has won a Slam in the last 20-30 years.  I'm still waiting for Tenez to explain to me why players still don't generally win Slams at 33 (and Fed might be the first for a long time soon.  Might.).  If everyone is improving so much, and age doesn't really matter that much, then where are all these 30+ slam winners?

Daniel

Posts : 3095
Join date : 2013-11-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: How would Federer have coped if he was as good as he was in 2005 according to Tenez's theory

Post by summerblues on Tue Oct 28, 2014 1:22 am

Kim Jong-Un wrote:
summerblues wrote:Am I imagining things or did we have this debate before?
We've had the debate on whether Federer is better before, but I can't remember discussing the consequence of that on what impact it makes on his results comparatively.
Maybe you've debated it, but I haven't ?
Silly me, this is clearly an entirely different debate Winking

summerblues

Posts : 2984
Join date : 2012-05-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: How would Federer have coped if he was as good as he was in 2005 according to Tenez's theory

Post by noleisthebest on Tue Oct 28, 2014 8:46 am

FedererKing wrote:Exactly.  Also, there has been some evolution in skill level, but slow (and more driven by technology).  However, this evolution did not happen in the space of 5 years, as it would have had to have done to make Tenez theory hold up.  In fact, probably would have had to happen in less than 2 years if you go up and look at Fed's win timeline (or any player's for that matter).

What's more likely is that age matters. And it does.  Especially over 30, which is why hardly any bugger that age has won a Slam in the last 20-30 years.  I'm still waiting for Tenez to explain to me why players still don't generally win Slams at 33 (and Fed might be the first for a long time soon.  Might.).  If everyone is improving so much, and age doesn't really matter that much, then where are all these 30+ slam winners?

Here lies the problem of your inability to understand why Federer is better now than in 2005,6,7: you don't seem to be able to see the level of change and how it affects players.

The game is so physically brutal now, that even a close QF 2 setter (Dimi) can make a player seriously under-performing in the next round.
Federer was lucky in Basel he had Karlovic after Dimi (mind you, he served brilliantly and made 3 sets out of it), but he paid the price of it in USO merely because it was the 5 setter against Monfils that left him half-dead against Cilic and eventually cost him the potential title.
And before you start mentioning Federer's age, the exact same happened to Nole (27) and Nishi (24?).

Draws and draw fixing are going to become more crucial than ever now. One look at Nole's in Bercy will confirm that.
We know who benefits from it most, of course. And even that does not seem to be enough any more.
Can't you see why?

noleisthebest

Posts : 24966
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: How would Federer have coped if he was as good as he was in 2005 according to Tenez's theory

Post by Daniel on Tue Oct 28, 2014 8:53 am

Which, of course, explains why the most physical player out there (Nadal) has lost 3 times in a row at Wimbledon to rank 100s (of course, that can't be age, can it?), and has won only one slam off clay in the last 4 years(?)  And that also explains why a 33 year old Federer made the final there in his place.

You aren't making any sense.  Look at the time-line.  For your crazy theory (and yes, it really is CRAZY) to be true, this change of yours would have had to have happened 2009-2010 (when Federer suddenly stopped winning as much as he used to do).  Did the change occur overnight or something?  Can you give me a date.

Real change is gradual and takes a decade.  It doesn't happen in a 1 or 2 year window.

Also, we can all see how much worse Federer is by looking over his old videos.  If you can't see that staring out at you, that's not my problem.

Again, if age didn't matter, we'd be seeing just as many 30+ slam champs as 20+. And that won't happen.  Ever.  Because it is contrary to science.

Daniel

Posts : 3095
Join date : 2013-11-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: How would Federer have coped if he was as good as he was in 2005 according to Tenez's theory

Post by noleisthebest on Tue Oct 28, 2014 9:47 am

I only hope everyone here can if not appreciate, then at least enjoy Federer's post Wimbledon tennis.

It's simply awesome.

I want to see a Nole-Fed showdown in the WTF final!
It could be the match of the decade if they both turn up relatively fresh.

noleisthebest

Posts : 24966
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: How would Federer have coped if he was as good as he was in 2005 according to Tenez's theory

Post by Tenez on Tue Oct 28, 2014 10:26 am

Kim Jong-Un wrote:
Tenez wrote:According to your theory the best player ever is rene Lacoste....cause the others only managed to win when he declined!
No, no; that is clearly not what FedKing is trying to say.
As older players decline after peak years, younger ones gets better as they get to their peak; and the combination of these two means players above 30-35 are generally less successful than 25-30, what FK is not saying is that the generations after Lacoste just got worse and worse.
Disagree this is exactly what FK is saying. He is saying that Fed at his best (when he was 24/25) was better than any of those current guys now, including Nadal and Djokovic. So in fact there is no way to find out if and whenever someone might get better than Federer's peak. So with this logic, some might think than no current player is better than Borg or McEnroe.

My view is much more down to earth. I am sure that until now not a single player retired better than the rest of the field. They were all beaten at their peak by the new generation. Simply because the competition keeps getting tougher. Especially since technology, training and diet make huge progress stride. So I can easily agree that Ferrer is not as talented as McEnroe but overall Ferrer would simply crush McEnroe any time...cause technology, fitness would simply take McEnroe appart..even peak McEnroe.

The only player who actually may decline before being taken over by the youngest generation is Federer. He got his share of being beaten by the younger generation but he kept working hard and is still very close to them....even though they play a very modern game with amazing fitness he was never prepared for when he learnt the game.

Tenez

Posts : 17175
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: How would Federer have coped if he was as good as he was in 2005 according to Tenez's theory

Post by noleisthebest on Tue Oct 28, 2014 10:33 am

I was just going to ask you if "Federation" was a typo, and you just corrected it!

So many puns and wordplays with his name...Federation could be a good one for this thread: he unites, absorbs and keeps going!

noleisthebest

Posts : 24966
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: How would Federer have coped if he was as good as he was in 2005 according to Tenez's theory

Post by Tenez on Tue Oct 28, 2014 10:35 am

FedererKing wrote:Exactly.  Also, there has been some evolution in skill level, but slow (and more driven by technology).  However, this evolution did not happen in the space of 5 years, as it would have had to have done to make Tenez theory hold up. 

Funny! You are seriously overlooking that Federer was actually beaten at his peak by Nadal! Just 2 or 3 years after Federer stormed into number 1. So in 2 years Nadal and Toni developed a game Federer could not handle.....and that without much talent. Simply by being able to retrieve irretrievable balls and hitting a very powerful and spiny ball.

So that very simple fact defeats your argument!

Tenez

Posts : 17175
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: How would Federer have coped if he was as good as he was in 2005 according to Tenez's theory

Post by Tenez on Tue Oct 28, 2014 10:36 am

noleisthebest wrote:I was just going to ask you if "Federation" was a typo, and you just corrected it!

So many puns and wordplays with his name...Federation could be a good one for this thread: he unites, absorbs and keeps going!
I think it is my spellchecker auto-correcting. .

Tenez

Posts : 17175
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: How would Federer have coped if he was as good as he was in 2005 according to Tenez's theory

Post by Tenez on Tue Oct 28, 2014 10:40 am

FedererKing wrote:What's more likely is that age matters. And it does.  Especially over 30, which is why hardly any bugger that age has won a Slam in the last 20-30 years.  I'm still waiting for Tenez to explain to me why players still don't generally win Slams at 33 (and Fed might be the first for a long time soon.  Might.).  If everyone is improving so much, and age doesn't really matter that much, then where are all these 30+ slam winners?

You must be kidding? I have explained to you a 1000 times. It's you who do not want to see it. It's because the new generation pushes them out.

If you look at the pre-open era when competition was not so stiff, most were winning slams at 30.

Tenez

Posts : 17175
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: How would Federer have coped if he was as good as he was in 2005 according to Tenez's theory

Post by noleisthebest on Tue Oct 28, 2014 10:58 am

Tenez wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:I was just going to ask you if "Federation" was a typo, and you just corrected it!

So many puns and wordplays with his name...Federation could be a good one for this thread: he unites, absorbs and keeps going!
I think it is my spellchecker auto-correcting. .
Spellchecker...the most annoying and useless feature ever, I turned it off as soon as I worked out how to!
Sometimes typos can be really good and funny.

noleisthebest

Posts : 24966
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: How would Federer have coped if he was as good as he was in 2005 according to Tenez's theory

Post by Daniel on Tue Oct 28, 2014 11:31 pm

Tenez wrote:
FedererKing wrote:What's more likely is that age matters. And it does.  Especially over 30, which is why hardly any bugger that age has won a Slam in the last 20-30 years.  I'm still waiting for Tenez to explain to me why players still don't generally win Slams at 33 (and Fed might be the first for a long time soon.  Might.).  If everyone is improving so much, and age doesn't really matter that much, then where are all these 30+ slam winners?

You must be kidding? I have explained to you a 1000 times. It's you who do not want to see it. It's because the new generation pushes them out.

If you look at the pre-open era when competition was not so stiff, most were winning slams at 30.

You're making up exceptions and theories to explain your overall theory.  I asked you why isn't that the trend TODAY, as you say the main change has been today. And what about the the last 20 years.  Also, we are talking about the Open Era... so I'm not sure where your argument is going.

Daniel

Posts : 3095
Join date : 2013-11-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: How would Federer have coped if he was as good as he was in 2005 according to Tenez's theory

Post by Tenez on Wed Oct 29, 2014 12:48 am

Very simple.

Pre-open era means less competition, less youngsters, less push for new technology hence longer careers of those who dedicated their lives to the sport. Hence winning slams later in their lives at their peak.

Open era means the circus is over and everybody can make a decent living trying to be a professional player, hence competition is fierce and youngsters are pushing the oldies out with teh help of technology but more so because the youngsters learn their game at a higher level than their older piers.

I noticed you ignored the main point of my previous point. Federer was beaten fare and square by a younger fitter player with an average talent. So teh game certainly moves on....very quickly. That same player (Nadal) got thrashed right and left a year later in 2011 by Djoko. Don;t tell me that Djoko only beat Nadal in 2011 cause Nadal was declining.

I am afraid you are ignoring common sense and the views of all pros who actually play the game.

Tenez

Posts : 17175
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: How would Federer have coped if he was as good as he was in 2005 according to Tenez's theory

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum