Dubai, Acapulco, Sao Paolo 2017

TMF wrote:As for Federer, he played an average tournament this years in OZ. It was only spectacular given his age. Peak Federer doesn't lose sets to Nishikori, Stan (and that match between the 2 of them at OZ this year was a poor standard), Melzer at the slams.

If you start talking about whom he lost sets then you have to look back and see that the prime Fed that you have been talking about was losing sets in slams to players far worse than Stan and Nishikori. 

Any other time Fed would have lost to Nadal, but this AO he could turn his weakness into strength. Hi BH in AO final has performed better than ever against any.. ANY... opponent in any of 18 slam wins.

Tenez wrote:And Djoko losing to Kyrgios.......

The chasing pack is catching up with the top guys.. I saw the macth Kyrgios played excellent throughout the match.. served great and held his nerve when needed..

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Tenez wrote:And Djoko losing to Kyrgios.......

The chasing pack is catching up with the top guys.. I saw the macth Kyrgios played excellent throughout the match.. served great and held his nerve when needed..

Yes, that's what I thought when I saw the score this morning.

Good to see, even though I really can't stand Kyrgios. Probably the worst scumbag that ever played tennis.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

TMF wrote:As for Federer, he played an average tournament this years in OZ. It was only spectacular given his age. Peak Federer doesn't lose sets to Nishikori, Stan (and that match between the 2 of them at OZ this year was a poor standard), Melzer at the slams.

If you start talking about whom he lost sets then you have to look back and see that the prime Fed that you have been talking about was losing sets in slams to players far worse than Stan and Nishikori. 
d mayAny other time Fed would have lost to Nadal, but this AO he could turn his weakness into strength. Hi BH in AO final has performed better than ever against any.. ANY... opponent in any of 18 slam wins.

Exactly. People have a very selective memory.

there is no doubt that at 35 Federer is way past his physical prime. No one is arguing against that. His body is more fragile and takes much longer to recover and maybe a fraction slower. However his progress and experience in all other aspects of his game allowed him to win another slam in spite of not being 100% physically....that's how much better he is now than then. Without being 100% fit in his hey days, he woudl most likely have lost against Nishi, Stan and Nadal who woudl have ran him down to death pummeling his BH.

But if some don;t want to see it, then that's their problem.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Tenez wrote:And Djoko losing to Kyrgios.......

The chasing pack is catching up with the top guys.. I saw the macth Kyrgios played excellent throughout the match.. served great and held his nerve when needed..

At last. I knew it was it was just a question of time. I did not expect this "time" to take that long....and to be fair I don;t think they are quite there at slams level.

This Federer thing goes on and on but i'm not sure there's even an argument except for how people articulate their positions.

My own position is this.

Physically, Federer is a pale shadow of his former self. Indeed the body has been accumulating deficiencies for a long time; since back to 2008 really, when the back started to become a more regular event. He's close to 36 now so that's obvious.

As a shotmaker he is much better than at any time in his career assuming he is in position. The backhand is a wonder and the serve still defies most picking after all these years. The forehand isn't quite what it was, that's the only slip I think. All this is fairly obvious really, both in the evidence of our eyes and common sense as he knows more, he's honed new skills. He never even drop-shotted until 2009.

Combining both together, the F2006 easily defeats the F2017. The margin would be very wide with the proviso that in the first set F2017 might have chances. However, even there, F2006 was very adept of extending rallies and making the Court very big. Any sensible contest would have to be over best of 3, but I'm certain it wouldn't swing it.


Now.... is anyone differing from that?

bogbrush wrote:This Federer thing goes on and on but i'm not sure there's even an argument except for how people articulate their positions.

My own position is this.

Physically, Federer is a pale shadow of his former self. Indeed the body has been accumulating deficiencies for a long time; since back to 2008 really, when the back started to become a more regular event. He's close to 36 now so that's obvious.

As a shotmaker he is much better than at any time in his career assuming he is in position. The backhand is a wonder and the serve still defies most picking after all these years. The forehand isn't quite what it was, that's the only slip I think. All this is fairly obvious really, both in the evidence of our eyes and common sense as he knows more, he's honed new skills. He never even drop-shotted until 2009.

Combining both together, the F2006 easily defeats the F2017. The margin would be very wide with the proviso that in the first set F2017 might have chances. However, even there, F2006 was very adept of extending rallies and making the Court very big. Any sensible contest would have to be over best of 3, but I'm certain it wouldn't swing it.


Now.... is anyone differing from that?

I disagree.
Fed 2017 can do so much more with the ball. His game has evolved, he volleys better more variety on BH, even on FH.

Fed 2006 played with more confidence as he had fresher younger body.

Would that confidence really be enough to beat 2017 Fed ("easily" as you suggest) who can SABR amd beat Nadal from a break down in the fifth?

i think that federer played with a lot more variety during his prime,or it could be a case of being allowed to play with more variety cause he was so far ahead of the pack
he did go through a phase where he simplified his game in an attempt to beat nadal
the game has changed so much in the last decade,federer has survived it all and has shown an ability to adapt and move with the times 
certain aspects of his game today are far better then what it was during his prime and vice versa but i think that has a lot to do with evolving as a player and what it takes to compete at the highest level of the game

NITB wrote:

bogbrush wrote:This Federer thing goes on and on but i'm not sure there's even an argument except for how people articulate their positions.

My own position is this.

Physically, Federer is a pale shadow of his former self. Indeed the body has been accumulating deficiencies for a long time; since back to 2008 really, when the back started to become a more regular event. He's close to 36 now so that's obvious.

As a shotmaker he is much better than at any time in his career assuming he is in position. The backhand is a wonder and the serve still defies most picking after all these years. The forehand isn't quite what it was, that's the only slip I think. All this is fairly obvious really, both in the evidence of our eyes and common sense as he knows more, he's honed new skills. He never even drop-shotted until 2009.

Combining both together, the F2006 easily defeats the F2017. The margin would be very wide with the proviso that in the first set F2017 might have chances. However, even there, F2006 was very adept of extending rallies and making the Court very big. Any sensible contest would have to be over best of 3, but I'm certain it wouldn't swing it.


Now.... is anyone differing from that?

I disagree.
Fed 2017 can do so much more with the ball. His game has evolved, he volleys better more variety on BH, even on FH.

Fed 2006 played with more confidence as he had fresher younger body.

Would that confidence really be enough to beat 2017 Fed ("easily" as you suggest) who can SABR amd beat Nadal from a break down in the fifth?

You honestly think F2006 couldn't have done that?

F2001 played a long 5 setter against the greatest Wimbledon champion up to that date and serve / volleyed all day long, pulling off a particular miracle shot at a critical point near the end.

The talent has always been there, all he's added is some practice at some shots, in some cases that was to reverse the adaptations he made between 2000 and 2006-10.

bogbrush wrote:
You honestly think F2006 couldn't have done that?

F2001 played a long 5 setter against the greatest Wimbledon champion up to that date and serve / volleyed all day long, pulling off a particular miracle shot at a critical point near the end.

The talent has always been there, all he's added is some practice at some shots, in some cases that was to reverse the adaptations he made between 2000 and 2006-10.

It's not a matter whether he could have.

The shots he had in 2006 are different from the shots he has in 2017.
He had to change his game after conditions slowed down, which meant survive longer on the baseline, i.e. improve his groundstrokes and later when even that wasn't enough - his volleys, and again later - when even that wasn't enough switch to larger frame which has now given him this fantastic, stable BH.

Fed 2017 would attack Fed 2006 BH with ease.

And to add to the above, all these new shots Fed has, had to be worked hard on, they don't just happen by themselves.

In 2006 he could have maybe pulled them off "by accident", but to have them as reliable part of your arsenal i.e. ready to'use CONSISTENTLY UNDER PRESSURE, it takes time and practice.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

TMF wrote:As for Federer, he played an average tournament this years in OZ. It was only spectacular given his age. Peak Federer doesn't lose sets to Nishikori, Stan (and that match between the 2 of them at OZ this year was a poor standard), Melzer at the slams.

If you start talking about whom he lost sets then you have to look back and see that the prime Fed that you have been talking about was losing sets in slams to players far worse than Stan and Nishikori. 

Any other time Fed would have lost to Nadal, but this AO he could turn his weakness into strength. Hi BH in AO final has performed better than ever against any.. ANY... opponent in any of 18 slam wins.

And you don't think that has anything to do with the change in conditions - faster, lighter balls and slightly quicker court? Or that Rafa is slower than he used to be and so can't track all the balls down like in the past.

No of course not. It must be because Federer at the age of 35 (after playing tennis for 30 years) finally learnt how to hit his BH.

bogbrush wrote:This Federer thing goes on and on but i'm not sure there's even an argument except for how people articulate their positions.

My own position is this.

Physically, Federer is a pale shadow of his former self. Indeed the body has been accumulating deficiencies for a long time; since back to 2008 really, when the back started to become a more regular event. He's close to 36 now so that's obvious.

As a shotmaker he is much better than at any time in his career assuming he is in position. The backhand is a wonder and the serve still defies most picking after all these years. The forehand isn't quite what it was, that's the only slip I think. All this is fairly obvious really, both in the evidence of our eyes and common sense as he knows more, he's honed new skills. He never even drop-shotted until 2009.

Combining both together, the F2006 easily defeats the F2017. The margin would be very wide with the proviso that in the first set F2017 might have chances. However, even there, F2006 was very adept of extending rallies and making the Court very big. Any sensible contest would have to be over best of 3, but I'm certain it wouldn't swing it.


Now.... is anyone differing from that?

I would agree with that for the most part.

Some technical aspects of his game may be slightly better but who gives a monkeys about that. He'd still get str8 setted by the 06 version - that's the bottom line.

So Tenez concedes that F2017 isn't physically as good as F2006 but is still apparently a better player. Ok, perhaps in a hypothetical world where it's all about technique and skill F2017 is a better player but in the real world where physicality, just as in any physical sport, is the primary determinant or discriminator at THIS level, F2006 beats this version handily.

NITB wrote:And to add to the above, all these new shots Fed has, had to be worked hard on, they don't just happen by themselves.

In 2006 he could have maybe pulled them off "by accident", but to have them as reliable part of your arsenal i.e. ready to'use CONSISTENTLY UNDER PRESSURE, it takes time and practice.

What a load of nonsense.

He had all the shots even in 2004. In 2006 he didn't need to adjust his game against anyone except Nadal.

NITB wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Tenez wrote:And Djoko losing to Kyrgios.......

The chasing pack is catching up with the top guys.. I saw the macth Kyrgios played excellent throughout the match.. served great and held his nerve when needed..

Yes, that's what I thought when I saw the score this morning.

Good to see, even though I really can't stand Kyrgios. Probably the worst scumbag that ever played tennis.

I think the top guys are going downwards and the new lot are improving hence meeting somewhere in the middle.

A little OTT don't you think. I don't mind him. He clearly has talent and isn't a gutless clown like Monfils. He's also quite funny in an unintentional way if you don't allow him to wind you up.

During OZ Federer made some comments about NK needing to prove he can get to a slam semi before being considered a serious contender for the title. NK replied with the following:

'I'm not going to, like, say anything back to him about it,” Kyrgios said. “Obviously it's his opinion. We'll see. I've done everything I can so far. What can I say? It's Roger. I can't really say anything to him ... He's the greatest of all time. I know I just want to do my own thing. I played him once, [and] I beat him once'

LOL.

TMF wrote:

NITB wrote:And to add to the above, all these new shots Fed has, had to be worked hard on, they don't just happen by themselves.

In 2006 he could have maybe pulled them off "by accident", but to have them as reliable part of your arsenal i.e. ready to'use CONSISTENTLY UNDER PRESSURE, it takes time and practice.

What a load of nonsense.

He had all the shots even in 2004. In 2006 he didn't need to adjust his game against anyone except Nadal.

i would probably say thats the biggest difference between then and now,federer in is prime never went into a match with a game plan,he just concentrated on his own game which pretty much always won

NITB wrote:

bogbrush wrote:
You honestly think F2006 couldn't have done that?

F2001 played a long 5 setter against the greatest Wimbledon champion up to that date and serve / volleyed all day long, pulling off a particular miracle shot at a critical point near the end.

The talent has always been there, all he's added is some practice at some shots, in some cases that was to reverse the adaptations he made between 2000 and 2006-10.

It's not a matter whether he could have.

The shots he had in 2006 are different from the shots he has in 2017.
He had to change his game after conditions slowed down, which meant survive longer on the baseline, i.e. improve his groundstrokes and later when even that wasn't enough - his volleys, and again later - when even that wasn't enough switch to larger frame which has now given him this fantastic, stable BH.

Fed 2017 would attack Fed 2006 BH with ease.

F2017 wouldn't be able to stay in rallies with F2006. F2005 could go 5 hours with Nadal on hot clay in Rome, durability was a strength. Tenez calls Federer tired barely through a set now.

Ever watched some of the net play from 2001 against Sampras? It's stunning. He's no better volleyer now than he was then.

You don't beat an incredible player with a backhand, it's just a matter of not being vulnerable there to Nadal - against any version of Federer the forehand is far more important.

Sampras would not stand a chance today. Tennis is very different now.

Fed 2017 excels in any era. There is nothing Fed 2006 could do which Fed 2017 can't.

Fed 2006 was only younger hence fresher, didn't face percentage grinders and as a result more confident, as the rallies were not nearly as physical as now.


What is easier, to win a point vs Sampras or Djokovic/Murray/Nadal?

In the meantime, allez Lucas!!!

NITB wrote:Sampras would not stand a chance today. Tennis is very different now.

Fed 2017 excels in any era. There is nothing Fed 2006 could do which Fed 2017 can't.

Fed 2006 was only younger hence fresher, didn't face percentage grinders and as a result more confident, as the rallies were not nearly as physical as now.


What is easier, to win a point vs Sampras or Djokovic/Murray/Nadal?

In the meantime, allez Lucas!!!

How about run faster and for longer for a start?

Or maybe in fantasy tennis land where everyone waltzes around waving their neo BH like some fairy wand, that isn't so important.

And pray tell me, since Federer has been getting infinitely better every year, why has he only managed to win 1 slam in 4.5 years ? mm a real conundrum.

Djoko sucks as usual, said a few days ago since his son was born, tennis is not priority, poor excuse, even for a Balkans guy.

He is done for good, and these more strict drug tests, are making him play clean 

Fed should play W, USO, Basel, WTF if he can, and quit, no one is catching him, ever.

TMF wrote:

NITB wrote:Sampras would not stand a chance today. Tennis is very different now.Fed 2017 excels in any era. There is nothing Fed 2006 could do which Fed 2017 can't.Fed 2006 was only younger hence fresher, didn't face percentage grinders and as a result more confident, as the rallies were not nearly as physical as now.What is easier, to win a point vs Sampras or Djokovic/Murray/Nadal?
In the meantime, allez Lucas!!!

How about run faster and for longer for a start?
Or maybe in fantasy tennis land where everyone waltzes around waving their neo BH like some fairy wand, that isn't so important.

First of all, Federer's tennis has never been about running, but making others run.
Running is a new thing introduced by Nadal, then followed by Murray and Djokovic.
Federer aptly called them road-runners a few years ago.

Tennis is more about footwork than running.

TMF wrote:
And pray tell me, since Federer has been getting infinitely better every year, why has he only managed to win 1 slam in 4.5 years ? mm a real conundrum.

In 2013 he was injured all year.
In 2014 he changed his racquet and was getting used to it.

In 2015 he played in two slam finals and was outlasted by Djokovic.

Last year, again injured.

Regardless, conditions are too slow for him now to be winning slams as he is playing clean.

At 35-6 his body is aching after every match.

He won AO only because the organisers provoded decent, fast balls and I am eternally grateful to Ozzies for that.

Had that been the case in 2015, he would have won those finals vs Djokovic.

Querrey! What a weird player. Plays his matches on the outside courts, or steals the show. Nothing in between.
Beating Goffin, Thiem, Kyrgios and Nadal all in one week!

gallery play wrote:Querrey! What a weird player. Plays his matches on the outside courts, or steals the show. Nothing in between.
Beating Goffin, Thiem, Kyrgios and Nadal all in one week!

Ohh saw the whole match...and how well he played, this whole  week. He has had some wins against top players but never against so many in one week. Well done.

Nadal didn't play bad. But a loss against Query is not something that will encourage him. He was completely expected to win once Djokovic was out.

Another example how a tad speeding of the court ( Yes commentators were saying this ), great tennis is produced and it allows more balanced contest between defense and attack.

bogbrush wrote:This Federer thing goes on and on but i'm not sure there's even an argument except for how people articulate their positions.

My own position is this.

Physically, Federer is a pale shadow of his former self. Indeed the body has been accumulating deficiencies for a long time; since back to 2008 really, when the back started to become a more regular event. He's close to 36 now so that's obvious.

As a shotmaker he is much better than at any time in his career assuming he is in position. The backhand is a wonder and the serve still defies most picking after all these years. The forehand isn't quite what it was, that's the only slip I think. All this is fairly obvious really, both in the evidence of our eyes and common sense as he knows more, he's honed new skills. He never even drop-shotted until 2009.

Combining both together, the F2006 easily defeats the F2017. The margin would be very wide with the proviso that in the first set F2017 might have chances. However, even there, F2006 was very adept of extending rallies and making the Court very big. Any sensible contest would have to be over best of 3, but I'm certain it wouldn't swing it.


Now.... is anyone differing from that?

BB, you make some good observations but, in my view, come to the wrong conclusion.
Yes Federer is more fragile now than in 2006 and sure, he does not recover as well, comprometting seriously his chances to win a slam. ......however he just did, playing a much better field than whoever he was playing in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010...and playing for the first time 3 5setters....including v gruelling Nadal.

Actually one observation I disagree is that his FH is worse now than in 2006/7. He purposedly adapted it to make less mistakes.  So for sure it might look less penetrating than in 2006 but that's simply because he realised he could not afford to give over 60UEs every time he met the likes of Nadal and Murray. Plus the courts slowed down at that time and allowed for higher bounces and more difficult balls to time. However put faster/lower bounce conditions and you will see his FH will be even more impressive...more so that now he uses more angles than then...or can flat it out if need be....like in the past.

So there are 2 interesting questions to me:
- Can a fragile 35yo Fed win as many slams as a fit 2006 Fed....in 2014 -2016?
- On the day can 2016 Fed beat his 2006 version?

Maybe the answers deserve a thread of its own?

tenez wrote:- Can a fragile 35yo Fed win as many slams as a fit 2006 Fed....in 2014 -2016?

Not sure i understand the question..a fragile 35yo Fed didn't win any slams in 2014-2016.
But i do believe the 2006 Fed would have won at least 2 Wimbledons in that period

tenez wrote:- On the day can 2016 Fed beat his 2006 version?

In bo3 most probably. Well, the AO 2017 Fed that is. The 2006 Fed would lose about every Bh-BH rally.
But i wouldn't underestimate the grinding skills of the 2006 version. His defending was as good as any roadrunner out there right now. Bar Nadal, every player panicked at some point in the rally against defending Federer. It was eighter going for the lines, or see Fed turning defence into attack.
Imo the Fed 2006 would grind 2017 Fed down, if he gets that chance! Because the 2017 Fed might be too elusive on the day. Like how Nalbandian outpaced Federer 2006 on the day.

Fed did not win any slam between 2014 and 2016 but he reached 3 slams finals and won 11 titles. So considering that he was only beaten by one player in those 3 slams finals it might be that in spite of being physically affected, he could have won 3 slams if it was not for one player who clearly set himself way above the rest of the field during that period. ...This very same player who was close to beat him in 3 straight sets at the fast USO final of 2007 at the age of 20.

I also showed that fed's runs to the USO and Wimby finals in 2015 were at least as convincing if not more than his runs to finals in 2006 and 2007....and I woudl really be surprised if you were to believe the field was similar in 2006 as 2015....IMO, it's much harder nearly a decade later.

So whether Fed 2006 could have won v Djoko 2015 on grass is honestly quite debatable. Fed did not have it easy v Nadal on grass at that time....so Djoko being much better than Nadal on grass it can be debated whether Djoko 15 woudl have rolled under Federer. I personally do not see it, especially considering how close were their matches in 2007 everywhere despite Djoko being a pale shadow of what he became in 2014 and 15.

Regarding Best of 5....depending on which federer turns up (and I mean on the day), I don't think it woudl be close at all. Fed 17 would win win very convincingly. More powerful and consistent shots so it woudl actually be fed 2017 grinding down 2006 federer! Cause not only he would be more consistent but he woudl be able to finish points more easily than then. Fed woudl be in flash on all those soft and short BH that Fed produced back then.

No the only reason Fed will not win slams nowadays is that he can't physically strings matches. He needs a minimum of day rest badly in between...and that unlike 2006, the rest of teh field is much more physically demanding than in 2006. Everybody is a Hewitt with powerful shots nowadays. That's teh main difference.

TMF wrote:

NITB wrote:Sampras would not stand a chance today. Tennis is very different now.

Fed 2017 excels in any era. There is nothing Fed 2006 could do which Fed 2017 can't.

Fed 2006 was only younger hence fresher, didn't face percentage grinders and as a result more confident, as the rallies were not nearly as physical as now.


What is easier, to win a point vs Sampras or Djokovic/Murray/Nadal?

In the meantime, allez Lucas!!!

How about run faster and for longer for a start?

Or maybe in fantasy tennis land where everyone waltzes around waving their neo BH like some fairy wand, that isn't so important.

And pray tell me, since Federer has been getting infinitely better every year, why has he only managed to win 1 slam in 4.5 years ? mm a real conundrum.

Dear god, do you actually believe that, NITB?  Federer has won just two Slams in his 30s. That's the end of your argument. If you ever watched videos from 2006, instead of just pretending you have, you'd see the difference.  And if you can't see the difference, then your brain is deficient.  Federer of 2006 could run faster and for longer.  You claim that tennis has nothing to do with running.  Really?  Well stand on the spot and see how many balls you return. The faster you are, the more balls you will return.  At the professional level, a loss of even quarter of a metre is enough to make a MASSIVE difference - and Federer has clearly lost at least a step. 

As I have pointed out to you and Tenez time and time again, it is a SCIENTIFIC FACT that, as we age, our bodies break down.  Our reflexes at 30 are scientifically proven to be dulled compared to 20.  Even our hearing is significantly worse.  The body undergoes a gradual, then steep decline.  The transition phase is slightly different person to person - and there is no way for us to study it (since that would take thousands of test subjects who are also twins), but we can see indisputable trends and absolutes.  It isn't an opinion that we degrade as we get older. It isn't an opinion that our reflexes, speed, agility, stamina are ALL WORSE at 30 than 20.  It's a scientific fact.  I will say it again

SCIENTIFIC FACT.

I posted you the list of oldest Slam winners a thousand times.  You have yet to explain to me how it is that with very few exceptions, the average winning age for players in the Slams is between 20 and 27. Those stats aren't going anywhere.

I asked you and Tenez once how it could be that Usain Bolt no longer gets anywhere near his fastest time despite his sport being one dimensional compared to tennis. You both came back with crap deflections, stating that running isn't tennis. You completely ignored the point that if even a runner is affected by being in his late 20s/early 30s, then a tennis player is going to be worse in MULTIPLE disciplines.  And losing a step alone is a massive disadvantage for a tennis player.  Players like Nadal suffer far worse with it than a shot maker, but you're claiming 2017 Federer is better or the equal to 2006.  Complete bullshit. 

I know this argument is going to just bounce off your head, but please understand you are wrong. 

Federer's forehand in 2006 is better. His shots are hit with more power and with more consistency. His serve hardly ever let him down in the biggest moments - it was super consistent (as opposed to when he played Djokovic in the Wimbledon finals and couldn't buy a first serve at crucial times). His movement was better. He was faster. Practically every part of his game was better.  Even his backhand was great - despite what people are trying to tell everyone.  It's all there on video. 2006 Federer isn't just better, he is light years ahead of the current Federer.  Current Federer is the best player I've seen post 30, but is that really a surprise given that he was the greatest in his 20s as well?

What you are saying is that the reason Federer hasn't won as much post 30 to post 20 is simply the opposition.  And that accounts for the greatest player of all time winning 2 slams in his 30s? That explains away numerous statistics, trends, and scientific facts? Your argument is beyond infantile.    In fact, I think you have an agenda to claim that the reason Djokovic isn't going to beat Fed's Slam haul is that he was winning in a weaker era.  I think that's the real issue here. It doesn't hold up.

Let's just completely destroy Tenez and NITB, shall we? How many slam winners have there been at the age of 35? I mean, surely we'd see tons considering you think being in your 30s is the same as 20s. Hot dog.   Your argument is crap. It's wrong.

That's a long post Daniel.

There are the scientific facts and then there is reality.

The reality is that since we had this long discussion, the average slam winner has moved from 27 to over 30. Even in that AO final you had 2 players over 30.

How unlucky can you be. And sadly we seem to be very far to have a 26/7yo winning a slam! That's the reality. But I am happy to listen to about your scientific facts...I do believe in them....but looks like there are quite limited in explaining REALITY.

I think NITB is suffering from a syndrome called: More Catholic then the Pope, i.e she is just defending all over the place Fed with totally unreal stuff.

Looks like she has jumped ship from Chokovic to Fed now, and being a bigger fan of Fed than anyone here.

Easy girl, take a breath 

Tenez wrote:
No the only reason Fed will not win slams nowadays is that he can't physically strings matches.

That's the whole point. In fact he even can't string sets.

I'm not ignoring his 2017 shotmaking skills

gallery play wrote:

Tenez wrote:
No the only reason Fed will not win slams nowadays is that he can't physically strings matches.

That's the whole point. In fact he even can't string sets.

I'm not ignoring his 2017 shotmaking skills

....but he still won 7 bo5 setters in a row...including 3 5 setters ending with Nadal!. So clearly I wonder whether he coudl have saved some energy had he not had this groin injury.

As I said I am surprised by the results out there. When I started to observe that Fed 2010 looked a better player to me than Fed 2006/7 I did not expect to see the whole tour aging like that..and certainly not by that much.

I think "professionalism" has a lot to do with it and the difficulty of youngsters to catch up with 10 added years of professionalism experience.

Daniel wrote:

TMF wrote:

NITB wrote:Sampras would not stand a chance today. Tennis is very different now.

Fed 2017 excels in any era. There is nothing Fed 2006 could do which Fed 2017 can't.

Fed 2006 was only younger hence fresher, didn't face percentage grinders and as a result more confident, as the rallies were not nearly as physical as now.


What is easier, to win a point vs Sampras or Djokovic/Murray/Nadal?

In the meantime, allez Lucas!!!

How about run faster and for longer for a start?

Or maybe in fantasy tennis land where everyone waltzes around waving their neo BH like some fairy wand, that isn't so important.

And pray tell me, since Federer has been getting infinitely better every year, why has he only managed to win 1 slam in 4.5 years ? mm a real conundrum.

Dear god, do you actually believe that, NITB?  Federer has won just two Slams in his 30s. That's the end of your argument. If you ever watched videos from 2006, instead of just pretending you have, you'd see the difference.  And if you can't see the difference, then your brain is deficient.  Federer of 2006 could run faster and for longer.  You claim that tennis has nothing to do with running.  Really?  Well stand on the spot and see how many balls you return. The faster you are, the more balls you will return.  At the professional level, a loss of even quarter of a metre is enough to make a MASSIVE difference - and Federer has clearly lost at least a step. 

As I have pointed out to you and Tenez time and time again, it is a SCIENTIFIC FACT that, as we age, our bodies break down.  Our reflexes at 30 are scientifically proven to be dulled compared to 20.  Even our hearing is significantly worse.  The body undergoes a gradual, then steep decline.  The transition phase is slightly different person to person - and there is no way for us to study it (since that would take thousands of test subjects who are also twins), but we can see indisputable trends and absolutes.  It isn't an opinion that we degrade as we get older. It isn't an opinion that our reflexes, speed, agility, stamina are ALL WORSE at 30 than 20.  It's a scientific fact.  I will say it again

SCIENTIFIC FACT.

I posted you the list of oldest Slam winners a thousand times.  You have yet to explain to me how it is that with very few exceptions, the average winning age for players in the Slams is between 20 and 27. Those stats aren't going anywhere.

I asked you and Tenez once how it could be that Usain Bolt no longer gets anywhere near his fastest time despite his sport being one dimensional compared to tennis. You both came back with crap deflections, stating that running isn't tennis. You completely ignored the point that if even a runner is affected by being in his late 20s/early 30s, then a tennis player is going to be worse in MULTIPLE disciplines.  And losing a step alone is a massive disadvantage for a tennis player.  Players like Nadal suffer far worse with it than a shot maker, but you're claiming 2017 Federer is better or the equal to 2006.  Complete bullshit. 

I know this argument is going to just bounce off your head, but please understand you are wrong. 

Federer's forehand in 2006 is better. His shots are hit with more power and with more consistency. His serve hardly ever let him down in the biggest moments - it was super consistent (as opposed to when he played Djokovic in the Wimbledon finals and couldn't buy a first serve at crucial times). His movement was better. He was faster. Practically every part of his game was better.  Even his backhand was great - despite what people are trying to tell everyone.  It's all there on video. 2006 Federer isn't just better, he is light years ahead of the current Federer.  Current Federer is the best player I've seen post 30, but is that really a surprise given that he was the greatest in his 20s as well?

What you are saying is that the reason Federer hasn't won as much post 30 to post 20 is simply the opposition.  And that accounts for the greatest player of all time winning 2 slams in his 30s? That explains away numerous statistics, trends, and scientific facts? Your argument is beyond infantile.    In fact, I think you have an agenda to claim that the reason Djokovic isn't going to beat Fed's Slam haul is that he was winning in a weaker era.  I think that's the real issue here. It doesn't hold up.

Let's just completely destroy Tenez and NITB, shall we? How many slam winners have there been at the age of 35? I mean, surely we'd see tons considering you think being in your 30s is the same as 20s. Hot dog.   Your argument is crap. It's wrong.

Good post.

But somehow I think all the pertinent points will be ignored.

I don't think they will be.  I know they will be.     Ignoring is part of it - but I am pretty sure a lot of what I am saying simply isn't being believed or understood.

Daniel wrote:I don't think they will be.  I know they will be.     Ignoring is part of it - but I am pretty sure a lot of what I am saying simply isn't being believed or understood.

i personally think that both of you are correct cause youre arguing two different points
your argument has to do with physical prime and at what age that is
tenez is arguing whats happening on the mens tour right now

Jahu wrote:I think NITB is suffering from a syndrome called: More Catholic then the Pope, i.e she is just defending all over the place Fed with totally unreal stuff.

Looks like she has jumped ship from Chokovic to Fed now, and being a bigger fan of Fed than anyone here.

Easy girl, take a breath 

Veejay wrote:

Daniel wrote:I don't think they will be.  I know they will be.     Ignoring is part of it - but I am pretty sure a lot of what I am saying simply isn't being believed or understood.

i personally think that both of you are correct cause youre arguing two different points
your argument has to do with physical prime and at what age that is
tenez is arguing whats happening on the mens tour right now

No, he and NITB are arguing that 2006 Fed is the same or worse than 2017.  NITB has stated that just above.  We are not arguing the same thing even remotely.

TMF wrote:

NITB wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Tenez wrote:And Djoko losing to Kyrgios.......

The chasing pack is catching up with the top guys.. I saw the macth Kyrgios played excellent throughout the match.. served great and held his nerve when needed..

Yes, that's what I thought when I saw the score this morning.
Good to see, even though I really can't stand Kyrgios. Probably the worst scumbag that ever played tennis.

I think the top guys are going downwards and the new lot are improving hence meeting somewhere in the middle.

They are ALL improving.
What do you think they do in their trainings?
I don't know who your favourite player is, surely you can notice even small improvements in that case.
They all keep adding shots, practice hitting them closer to lines more consistently etc.
Not to mention the timing.

I am actually shocked that people here can't see all those changes.

You never stop learning in tennis, even Federer.

TMF wrote:
A little OTT don't you think. I don't mind him. He clearly has talent and isn't a gutless clown like Monfils. He's also quite funny in an unintentional way if you don't allow him to wind you up.

He is more gutless than Monfils, because he pretends he isn't.

I watched him live from close up in Wimbledon. He mumbles non-stop. That is very annoying and distracting for opponents.
That's why Federer called him a clown.

That incident with Wawrinka was below any dignity. I wish Stan decked him there and then, he really should have.

As far as I am concerned he is a tattooed monkey with complex of inferiority which he masks with this "I am so cool I can't be bothered to play" complex of superiority.

He can't take the loss on the chin like a man, but tanks.

He does not belong to tennis, he brings the game down into mud.

TMF wrote:During OZ Federer made some comments about NK needing to prove he can get to a slam semi before being considered a serious contender for the title. NK replied with the following:'I'm not going to, like, say anything back to him about it,” Kyrgios said. “Obviously it's his opinion. We'll see. I've done everything I can so far. What can I say? It's Roger. I can't really say anything to him ... He's the greatest of all time. I know I just want to do my own thing. I played him once, [and] I beat him once' LOL.

Donskoy beat Federer the other day as well but did not carry on like an idiot.

Federer didn't call him a clown - don't make things up - leave that to DT and the false news crew

He's actually beaten Federer, Nadal and Djokovic at the first attempt. No way is he gutless like Monfail.

Federer said that the match needed "a clown for this circus". That is not a reference to Kyrgios.  It was about the match and line decisions.

I like Kyrgios.  He speaks his mind. He says what he feels. And he he will win Slams.  I'm tired of politically correct PR answers. He's put the work in and deserves his place.  If everyone was proper and well spoken, sport would be boring.