Masters 1000: Toronto

FK - I thought for many years that players were peaking at 26/27...up to 4 years ago. I was extremely convinced too.

But that's because I did not consider the many other factors.

And I did not decide to change my mind....I just observed it....very obvious with Federer in fact....especially after some of his 2009/2010/2011/2012 display and despite his injuries and more frequent losses.

Tenez wrote:
Wilander, Pete, Federer, Djoko, Nadal, etc....they all agree....

McEnroe said in 83 that when watching a replay of his 1980 Wimby final v Borg it looked like it was played in slo-mo.

nadal, Djoko and whoever will all be beaten by "improved" players before they have time to decline...... though this generation has abused its body so much that they may decline quicker than the rest on tour.

Yes, Nadal is the one to watch.
I remember doing a thread on who was going to retire first Federer or Nadal a few years ago on bbc606 and it caused an outrage among Nadal fans...

Plus, what worries me is a whole generation of young players won't even have a chance to fulfil their talent because they'll ruin their bodies trying to get fit and make a breakthrough - Nishikori, for example.

Navratilova said when she got older, her bad days were so much worse when she was older than when she was younger. Feds has a lot more bad days now.

luvsports! wrote:Navratilova said when she got older, her bad days were so much worse when she was older than when she was younger. Feds has a lot more bad days now.

Yes but she was over 45 when she retired...and played WOMEN''s non-physical tennis...

Tenez wrote:Why not? It is very relevant. Because that is all the reference we have.

I agree comparing his matches from now against the past is relevant, and I agree that his match against Lopez is one such reference point. What I am saying is that if you do that, you cannot just pick a match that suits you and ignore the rest. I can just as easily find matches he played against players where his recent result was far worse than his old result - and I will be able to find more of those.

Tenez wrote:Is that your only argument? Was Federer winning slams against a clock, a distance, of a lifting weight? Fed is playing against a constantly improving opposition, that might be the difference!!! Did not you notice either?
Owens time was beaten by Carl Lewis's whose in turn was beaten by Green, etc and now Bolt. None of those 100 000 racers of the past have been running faster than Bolt.

But for your argument to hold it is not enough that Fed's opposition is improving - it would have to be improving at an astonishing rate. In most measurable sports, if an all-time great comes in, they will only start losing to second tier performers after they themselves start declining - not because the rest of the field overtakes them.

Performances do improve with time, but much slower than they would have to improve for your argument to be valid.

Tenez wrote:When Pete said in 2002 he played his best tennis for winning the USO, you can trust what he says.

He is the one guy you can trust the least on this topic because he is not an unbiased observer.

luvsports! wrote:Navratilova said when she got older, her bad days were so much worse when she was older than when she was younger. Feds has a lot more bad days now.

yes most likely. But Martina was winning Wimbledon at 34! An I certainly do expect Federer tough days to be more frequent now at the turn of his 33yo birthday. I do not believe he will be fine at 49!

But what is sure is that Federer 06/07 "good days" would really struggle v todays' Djoko, Nadal and Murray's good day, whereas now he can keep up with them. Don't forget he already struggled v Nadal back then.

summerblues wrote:

Tenez wrote:Why not? It is very relevant. Because that is all the reference we have.

I agree comparing his matches from now against the past is relevant, and I agree that his match against Lopez is one such reference point.  What I am saying is that if you do that, you cannot just pick a match that suits you and ignore the rest.  I can just as easily find matches he played against players where his recent result was far worse than his old result - and I will be able to find more of those.

Please give it a go!
You will find it extremely hard cause most of the top 100 of 2006/7 have slipped back...for the very reason that the tour improves and moves on. I guess I can find 5 if not 10 examples going my way for one going yours.

Performances do improve with time, but much slower than they would have to improve for your argument to be valid.

This is where you seem to be ignoring the obvious! I think any fan observed that the physical performance in tennis improved drastically in the last 7 years. Luxilon strings has forced professionals to work their fitness to ridiculous proportion. But above all it completely shifted tennis away from talent towards fitness.
It's not so much the performance which changed as much as the game.

Had Federer been able to win points with a 2 stroke rallies you may have a point....but to do so nowadays he has no choice but to go the net. If he stays back he is guaranteed an average of 5 shots rallies minimum.

Pete is the one guy you can trust the least on this topic because he is not an unbiased observer.

Why would he be? Plus as I said, Wilander, Djoko, Nadal and every else says the game moves on and gets tougher.

You should really get a look at this list SB.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Roger-Federer.aspx?t=pa&y=2007&m=s&e=0#

It's quite surprising to see the results there, especially the close sets he had with some players.

summerblues wrote:But for your argument to hold it is not enough that Fed's opposition is improving - it would have to be improving at an astonishing rate.  In most measurable sports, if an all-time great comes in, they will only start losing to second tier performers after they themselves start declining - not because the rest of the field overtakes them.
Performances do improve with time, but much slower than they would have to improve for your argument to be valid.

The improvement is not a metric quality that stays with a player, it affects other players and the way the game is played.

Every player is improving and in this stage of tennis evolution improvement favours fitness and physicality. Improvement is an inevitable part of the package.

No improvement - you are history! That's why it's so hard to come back from long injuries.

If physicality was not in play, Fed's improvement would have been more obvious to you.

This physical era has probably peaked, so it's interesting to observe how it gets undone and how the new generation challenges current top players.

As things stand, Dimi is the leader of the new generation of roadrunners, but I don't think it will bring him as much success as the current ones, as even they are trying to cut out the running and learning how to volley and shorten the points.
Everyone is working hard and trying to improve within the limits of their talent.

It will be very interesting to see Nadal's "improvement" at USO.

Brace yourselves!!!

http://tablet.gq.com/style/1448-exclusive-the-nike-gear-roger-federer-and-rafael-nadal-will-sport-at-the-us-open

noleisthebest wrote:Brace yourselves!!!

http://tablet.gq.com/style/1448-exclusive-the-nike-gear-roger-federer-and-rafael-nadal-will-sport-at-the-us-open

That's one thing that has not improved much in 7 years.

Is Cincy as fast as Toronto? And more importantly will the US be fast?

We'll find out soon.
I have a feeling both will be as last year, esp as Nadal is likely to play in USO.
As a tournament, USO has done most to accommodate Nadal over the years in every possible way.

noleisthebest wrote:We'll find out soon.
I have a feeling both will be as last year, esp as Nadal is likely to play in USO.
As a tournament, USO has done most to accommodate Nadal over the years in every possible way.

I know. The joke was the tennis balls doubling in size in 2010!

Yes...and all the hype over him completing his "career slam". I was so depressed...

Also annoyed with Nole handing him the trophy last year...but at least he had 2011. Such a crucial year esp in the light of how unstoppable Nadal looked in 2010.

And now this sleeveless look again...he knows he is beginning to lose his physical edge so the only way to show his "strength" left is this visual intimidation...I reckon that's why Raonic is wearing that sleeve on his serving arm as well.

Ten, you are trying to say as if Fed's opponents have remained the same set of players who trouble him now because they have immensely improved. In 2004-07 time, likes of Djokovic, Nadal , Murray may not be at their peak. They have improved a lot since then I agree. But even this those 2004-7 times, there were other very good players at their absolute peak and Fed was still taking them apart.

So if you look at the ratio of Players at their peak to Players improving, it remains fairly constant with time. Its not that suddenly the number of players playing their absolute peak tennis has increased drastically, and so much that Fed though himself has improved a lot since 2004-07, still struggling to put them away.

The argument stands that Fed has declined with age. If he was playing better than 2004-07, he would definitely be winning at least 50% of what he was back then. But that's not nearly the case.

Tenez wrote:More from Fed:

"Today was just difficult in terms of rhythm from the baseline, so it was like a new tournament for me today."

Is he delusional? did not he realise that's because he is too slow?

Okay, what about his Loss at wimbledon? Did the TDs screw up the scheduling there too for him? What about RG 4th rnd loss to Gulbis? And Losses at Rome. Okay babies arrival, fine.  And the MC final to Wawrinka, would you have thought Wawrinka making his first MC final and beating Fed on clay in 2004-07 with coming back from a set down? Wawrinka is playing his best tennis, definitely and also there is a fact that Fed isn't.

Loss at Brisbane to Hewitt? Oh Hewitt too must have improved more than Fed has, right?

You want to say that you don't count result and success, and yet you use the results of certain matches to suit your points?

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Ten, you are trying to say as if Fed's opponents have remained the same set of players who trouble him now because they have immensely improved. In 2004-07 time, likes of Djokovic, Nadal , Murray may not be at their peak. They have improved a lot since then I agree. But even this those 2004-7 times, there were other very good players at their absolute peak and Fed was still taking them apart.

Right and where are they now? do they give Fed more trouble now than then?

So if you look at the ratio of Players at their peak to Players improving, it remains fairly constant with time. Its not that suddenly the number of players playing their absolute peak tennis has increased drastically, and so much that Fed though himself has improved a lot since 2004-07, still struggling to put them away.

But who is he struggling against? he is a clear number 3 player. Meaning only Djoko and Nadal are better than him. And that despite having a dragging back injury in 2013. I believe you recognise now that his slipping to number 7 or 8 last year was down to injury and not age. Very much like Tsonga slipped to number 15 for the same reasons.

The argument stands that Fed has declined with age. If he was playing better than 2004-07, he would definitely be winning at least 50% of what he was back then. But that's not nearly the case

Again, have you watched that match on Sunday and seen those amazing volleys (and half volleys)? Did you honestly see a drop of reflexes and footwork? (remember he won 18/20 net points!!!.

Winning only tells about one match up. of course not. Check in 2006/2007 there was not a single 20 shot rally on grass and HC, now it's full of them. It has becomes a clay court game all over, forced by conds but also much fitter players able to exploits their positions from the baseline. Did not he lose to Canas twice on HC in 2007 (miami and IW)? I can tell you that Fed 2014 woudl not lose to Canas. Check on youtube Canas game....check their match, and you will realise that Tsonga is bringing much more than Canas on the table.

And again, Fed played badly in that final cause like he said it was like playing in a new tournament (day conds).....considering how important timing is for him, it's obvious why he struggled on Sunday.

Another example. Canada 2006 (his very best year!)

R16 Dmitry Tursunov (RUS) 27 W 6-3, 5-7, 6-0 Stats
Q Xavier Malisse (BEL) 41 W 7-6(4), 6-7(5), 6-3 Stats
S Fernando Gonzalez (CHI) 16 W 6-1, 5-7, 6-3 Stats
W Richard Gasquet (FRA) 51 W 2-6, 6-3, 6-2 Stats
=========================
Problem is nowadays players can really tire Federer and more easily draw a victory of those then close matches.
But it's time people realise that though he was winning a lot back then it was not cruising as much as we think. In fact if you look at the list 0f 2006 we would not expect Fed to struggle against players he was struggling then .

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Tenez wrote:More from Fed:

"Today was just difficult in terms of rhythm from the baseline, so it was like a new tournament for me today."

Is he delusional? did not he realise that's because he is too slow?

Okay, what about his Loss at wimbledon? Did the TDs screw up the scheduling there too for him? What about RG 4th rnd loss to Gulbis? And Losses at Rome. Okay babies arrival, fine.  And the MC final to Wawrinka, would you have thought Wawrinka making his first MC final and beating Fed on clay in 2004-07 with coming back from a set down? Wawrinka is playing his best tennis, definitely and also there is a fact that Fed isn't.

Loss at Brisbane to Hewitt? Oh Hewitt too must have improved more than Fed has, right?

You want to say that you don't count result and success, and yet you use the results of certain matches to suit your points?

Doesn't this one defeats your own argument? Think about it.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Ten, you are trying to say as if Fed's opponents have remained the same set of players who trouble him now because they have immensely improved. In 2004-07 time, likes of Djokovic, Nadal , Murray may not be at their peak. They have improved a lot since then I agree. But even this those 2004-7 times, there were other very good players at their absolute peak and Fed was still taking them apart.
So if you look at the ratio of Players at their peak to Players improving, it remains fairly constant with time. Its not that suddenly the number of players playing their absolute peak tennis has increased drastically, and so much that Fed though himself has improved a lot since 2004-07, still struggling to put them away.
The argument stands that Fed has declined with age. If he was playing better than 2004-07, he would definitely be winning at least 50% of what he was back then. But that's not nearly the case.

Yes, but the game then was different and not as physical as now.
I think the key problem in this discussion is understanding how tennis has changed allowing current game to strangle shot-makers.

Three main components: endurance/fitness - players can last, ball-striking(strings) - safe spinning and hitting the ball hard as opposed to flat, high-bouncing balls and surfaces.

When you look at these three you can see they suit Nadal to a tee and complete opposite for Fed. Had the playing conditions etc not changed, Nadal would have not won any slams on hard courts.

Nadal relies on endless source of energy and can afford to play his tennis OUTSIDE the court, needing minimal talent.
Federer relied on his ball-striking and plays his tennis on the baseline or inside the court. All talent.

Tennis was never designed to be an athletic discipline but a sport where hand to eye coordination (ie. talent)  excels.

It's incredibly difficult to play the way Federer is in current conditions, it's like swimming upstream while the rest go the other way.

Nadal certainly hasn't improved on grass, has he?  He's gone worse.  Why would that be, I wonder?

FedererKing wrote:Nadal certainly hasn't improved on grass, has he?  He's gone worse.  Why would that be, I wonder?

What makes you think he has got worse? In 2005/06/2007/2008/2009/ he was points away from being kicked out in the first week. Then he just managed to turn around 2 sets deficit....this year he could not. The first week, fresh grass, has always been difficult to him and he says it himself.

I think winning the FO took too much off him lately....thanks to Djoko gruelling matches and therefore he simply does not want (or can't) give Wimby its full commitment.

Even for Nadal it's getting tougher.

What makes me think he's gotten worse?  Losing 3 times in a row to Rank 100+, unless you are telling me Rank 100s are now better than Nadal at his best, as well?  Truth is, Nadal is on the decline.  He's become very slightly slower and it's costing him on the faster surfaces with lower bounce.  It's downhill from here for Djok, Murray, and Nadal.  And by 30 it's doubtful any of those will be winning Slams.

Tenez... presumably you believe there is some decline at some point?  I mean, you don't honestly think that Federer at 60 is the same as 30?  So that being the case, WHEN is a player past his best.  What age?  All stats and the study I linked to earlier say 23-24 is the peak age.  If it isn't mid 20s, and title-ending decline isn't around 27 onwards (rapidly getting worse year on year), then WHEN is it?  35? 40?  50?

Your argument is that Federer, at 33, is better than he was at 25.  So when will he stop being "better and better" and start getting worse?

Tenez wrote:Is that your only argument? Was Federer winning slams against a clock, a distance, of a lifting weight? Fed is playing against a constantly improving opposition, that might be the difference!!! Did not you notice either?
Owens time was beaten by Carl Lewis's whose in turn was beaten by Green, etc and now Bolt. None of those 100 000 racers of the past have been running faster than Bolt.

One more comment on this - in your 100m example, none of the guys were overtaken while they were still improving. Owens's time was only beaten 20 years later. Lewis's last world record was his best ever performance. The record stood for three years and he was no longer improving when the record was broken. Same goes for Green (and Green was not even an all time great). The indication is, the same will be true for Bolt too.

Not one of your own examples was overtaken while still improving. The reality is that the overwhelming evidence from the sports that are being played against the clock or distance is that - while the sports are improving over time - they are improving much slower than what you would need from tennis. A once-in-a-lifetime superstar like Federer just does not get caught up by the field like Fed did while they are still improving.

And as I said before, the Olympic record for long jump was set in the 60s (it still remains the second best of all time, and took 2-3 decades to beat). There are a myriad of records that are still to be overtaken after more than a decade.  Federer is a once in 100 year occurrence.  That level of talent with that much fitness.  He does not get taken over in a 7 year period.  He has declined rapidly through age, just like all the runners do, and every other sportsman does in their late 20s.  Usain Bolt will not be winning a raffle when he is 30.

There is a limit to human progress in sport.  You will never see a human run the 100m in five seconds as it is scientifically impossible.  Federer is a one off, and someone with that level of talent v fitness won't be around again for a LONG LONG time.

noleisthebest wrote:I think the key problem in this discussion is understanding how tennis has changed allowing current game to strangle shot-makers.

Ok, this argument is at least in principle plausible.

The argument that sports are improving and that is why an improving Fed was overtaken is just plain obviously incorrect. However, if the argument is that tennis has not so much improved but rather just changed, then in principle it could indeed happen that Fed would be overtaken while still improving.

I am fairly certain Fed is declining, but it will be harder to argue against your line of reasoning. I can see roughly three ways to go about it:

First, we can limit ourselves to clay court tennis. Conditions there did not change all that much since 2006 yet Fed's results are much weaker.

Second, I do not really think conditions changed sufficiently (since 2006) even on hard courts. However, this one is more subjective - you will likely feel conditions did change sufficiently, and it will be difficult to prove either way.

Third, I could go through Fed's game item by item and conclude that on balance it is quite a bit worse now. I actually think this is quite obvious. But again, in the end, this is bound to involve subjective judgements and if you just come and say that you see it otherwise, it will be hard to come to an agreement.

Yeah, the sport has not changed that much in the period of time they are suggesting to affect Federer's results that way.  Unless we went from grass to nails, that is.

FK's post reminded me of a fourth possible line of reasoning:

Fed's age. By 33, tennis players were always declining - even before conditions and racquets and strings started to change.

Tenez wrote:

summerblues wrote:What I am saying is that if you do that, you cannot just pick a match that suits you and ignore the rest.  I can just as easily find matches he played against players where his recent result was far worse than his old result - and I will be able to find more of those.

Please give it a go!
You will find it extremely hard cause most of the top 100 of 2006/7 have slipped back...

On a dodgy internet connection so in no position to dig through a lot of data but luckily it is not extremely hard at all and I do not have to go very far back to find an example. I can stay in the same tournament and look at Fed's result against Ferrer. In all their combined matches through 2006, Fed lost exactly zero sets. Now he needed three sets to beat him.

Anyway, I am not going to attempt to use his Ferrer match to prove anything. But the point is you cannot do it either - based on just two matches he played against Lopez that just happen to suit you.

summerblues wrote:

Tenez wrote:Is that your only argument? Was Federer winning slams against a clock, a distance, of a lifting weight? Fed is playing against a constantly improving opposition, that might be the difference!!! Did not you notice either?
Owens time was beaten by Carl Lewis's whose in turn was beaten by Green, etc and now Bolt. None of those 100 000 racers of the past have been running faster than Bolt.

One more comment on this - in your 100m example, none of the guys were overtaken while they were still improving. Owens's time was only beaten 20 years later.  Lewis's last world record was his best ever performance.  The record stood for three years and he was no longer improving when the record was broken.  Same goes for Green (and Green was not even an all time great).  The indication is, the same will be true for Bolt too.

Not one of your own examples was overtaken while still improving.  The reality is that the overwhelming evidence from the sports that are being played against the clock or distance is that - while the sports are improving over time - they are improving much slower than what you would need from tennis.  A once-in-a-lifetime superstar like Federer just does not get caught up by the field like Fed did while they are still improving.

I am not sure what's your point. The distance between the world record being broken is probably due to the sport amarateurism. The more competition, the shorter the record lasted. In pole vault for instance, the number of people practising it is very small compared to those playing tennis or football.

And regardless of all those points, tennis changed very quickly from ebing a Sving game up to the late 90s to being a baseline marathon game in the 00s. You are actually ignoring the main points I make. My 100m record parallel stands. The guy who ran faster is the last guy who raced last.....cause sport competition gets tougher and science gets better.

You have not answered the point about Federer being beaten at his peak time by a 21yo guys. Federer already then could not put him away. What happened after that is that everybody worked twice as much and sciences helped them to compensate. Federer has still better shots than anyone else on tour.....but when you have guys who can simply hammer his BH with DHBH, he is being exposed. That did not exist in 2003 cause conds were fast and players were less fit and finally they could not force Federer to run....now they know all how to use spin and force him to run, very quickly taking away his explosiveness and sharpness. fed says it himself. It's now more physical than talent. He gives you the answer to his today's problem but you don't want to listen.

You in France I read?

summerblues wrote:

Tenez wrote:

summerblues wrote:What I am saying is that if you do that, you cannot just pick a match that suits you and ignore the rest.  I can just as easily find matches he played against players where his recent result was far worse than his old result - and I will be able to find more of those.

Please give it a go!
You will find it extremely hard cause most of the top 100 of 2006/7 have slipped back...

On a dodgy internet connection so in no position to dig through a lot of data but luckily it is not extremely hard at all and I do not have to go very far back to find an example.  I can stay in the same tournament and look at Fed's result against Ferrer.  In all their combined matches through 2006, Fed lost exactly zero sets.  Now he needed three sets to beat him.

Anyway, I am not going to attempt to use his Ferrer match to prove anything.  But the point is you cannot do it either - based on just two matches he played against Lopez that just happen to suit you.

very poor example...are you saying that Fed declined in 2007???   
Wrong Fed was losing sets to Ferrer in 2007 and 2009 too!
2009 ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Cincinnati
OH, U.S.A. Hard R16 Federer, Roger
3-6, 6-3, 6-4 Stats
2007 Tennis Masters Cup
China Hard F Federer, Roger
6-2, 6-3, 6-2 Stats
2007 ATP Masters Series Hamburg
Germany Clay Q Federer, Roger
6-3, 4-6, 6-3 Stats

Plus you are ignoring this very stat....
In 2006 Fed closely won a 76 14/16 TB so very close to lose a set in 2006 too on carpet on his own club basel.

I can tell you why ferrer has done well over the years after 2006.....cause the conds slowed down and that made all courts play like clay courts. This is why he is the only player of Fed's generation able to keep up. all the others have long disappeared.

As I said study the list.....you will be surprised!

FedererKing wrote:Yeah, the sport has not changed that much in the period of time they are suggesting to affect Federer's results that way.  Unless we went from grass to nails, that is.

I wish you could talk sense now. The game has changed considerably in the last 7 years. Even in 3 years.

Watch the USO 2006 or 07 final and watch the USO 2010/11 finala! ...or AOs for that matter.

Why do I have to argue if you cannot admit the obvious!

summerblues wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:I think the key problem in this discussion is understanding how tennis has changed allowing current game to strangle shot-makers.

Ok, this argument is at least in principle plausible.

The argument that sports are improving and that is why an improving Fed was overtaken is just plain obviously incorrect.  However, if the argument is that tennis has not so much improved but rather just changed, then in principle it could indeed happen that Fed would be overtaken while still improving.

I am fairly certain Fed is declining, but it will be harder to argue against your line of reasoning.  I can see roughly three ways to go about it:

First, we can limit ourselves to clay court tennis.  Conditions there did not change all that much since 2006 yet Fed's results are much weaker.

Second, I do not really think conditions changed sufficiently (since 2006) even on hard courts.  However, this one is more subjective - you will likely feel conditions did change sufficiently, and it will be difficult to prove either way.

Third, I could go through Fed's game item by item and conclude that on balance it is quite a bit worse now.  I actually think this is quite obvious.  But again, in the end, this is bound to involve subjective judgements and if you just come and say that you see it otherwise, it will be hard to come to an agreement.

This is not about winning an argument, it's about being able to understand how the changes in the game have affected Federer's style of play and tennis in general.
It's not an empiric experiment involving comparison of measurements.

It also isn't about "feeling" how much the game has changed - it is there so plain to see.

The easiest way is just to observe Federer.

The fact that someone of his talent and athletic ability at the peak of his prowess, all the variety only he has plus his drive is just able to stay afloat at the top says how much game has degenerated in the physical way.
PHYSICALITY KILLS TENNIS.

So much so Federer had to start playing with a bigger frame.

You see it as Federer declining I see it as the game changed to such an extent that he is literally having to run uphill.

Why do you think Nole is so desperate to try to learn volleying?

Tenez, nitb,

So perhaps there is just no such thing called 'decline with age' in sports, even the ones demanding high physical ability. Because almost every sport evolves with varying degrees and so does tennis. And its all due to this sports evolutions that players start to lose more and more as they age out. Their own skills actually grows better with age, but the fact is the rest of the tour improves drastically and the sports itself move far ahead. So far that though this particular player has improved himself, he is unable to keep pace.

Is this correct?

Tenez wrote:I am not sure what's your point....My 100m record parallel stands. The guy who ran faster is the last guy who raced last.....cause sport competition gets tougher and science gets better.

My point is that sports do not advance fast enough for an all time great to be overtaken while they are still improving, and that your own example demonstrates that. If you still do not understand why your own example works against you, then I do not know how else to explain it.

Tenez wrote:You in France I read?

In Paris, for a week. Great city, though weather has been so-so this week.

Tenez wrote:very poor example...are you saying that Fed declined in 2007???   
Wrong Fed was losing sets to Ferrer in 2007 and 2009 too!

The point I was making is you can read these individual match stats any way you want. Fed's match against Ferrer last week was one of his harder matches against Ferrer, there are no two ways about it.

You answer by cherry picking matches yet again - which means you missed the point.

noleisthebest wrote:This is not about winning an argument,

That is pretty much what I am saying too. What I was trying to say was that while I am pretty certain that you are wrong, I recognize that if you decide to dig in, and refuse to see the obvious, there will be no way to convince you and it will be pointless to carry this discussion much further.

summerblues wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:This is not about winning an argument,

That is pretty much what I am saying too.  What I was trying to say was that while I am pretty certain that you are wrong, I recognize that if you decide to dig in, and refuse to see the obvious there will be no way to convince you and it will be pointless to carry this discussion much further.

SB,
I am not sure you understand how the game has changed and how much it has affected players. Tennis as we know it has hit the brick wall.

So please, feel free to "dig in" and show the "obvious".
I'm all ears.

You still have not answered my question, Tenez, and Nole...

When does decline occur?  What age?  Or do you think 40 and 50 year olds are better than they were at 25.  I want to know where you draw the line.

And if you draw a line, why do you draw it there?  What evidence do you have to support your opinion.

summerblues wrote:

In Paris, for a week.  Great city, though weather has been so-so this week.

I hope you are enjoying the food    &  

Nitb,

But are you really "all ears" or are you mostly interested in repeating what you have been repeating all along? I, FK and rotla provided a number of reasons why we think Fed is worse than he used to be. If you were really "all ears" you would have heard them by now.

I would love to hear a robust rebuttal, but you have only been providing evasive answers - almost the way Amri does it when he decides he just must not give an inch.

Regarding the food - indeed

Also, a colleague of my wife lived in Paris for a number of years so he gave us tips for some good restaurants. Not expensive or fancy, but they are very good indeed.

FedererKing wrote:You still have not answered my question, Tenez, and Nole...
When does decline occur?  What age?  Or do you think 40 and 50 year olds are better than they were at 25.  I want to know where you draw the line.
And if you draw a line, why do you draw it there?  What evidence do you have to support your opinion.

Assuming I'm "Nole" (what's  next!!!?   ), regarding declining every player is different and will start declining at a different age.
This particular physical era won't even allow players to start declining, their bodies will break down before it happens.
As for Federer, I've no idea when he will decline, all I can say, he is far from it.

I just wish the conditions for playing tennis were more human and not so taxing on the body, we'd be able to enjoy him  much longer.
Hats off to him for loving tennis and putting his money where his mouth is.

summerblues wrote:Nitb,
But are you really "all ears" or are you mostly interested in repeating what you have been repeating all along?  I, FK and rotla provided a number of reasons why we think Fed is worse than he used to be.  If you were really "all ears" you would have heard them by now.
I would love to hear a robust rebuttal, but you have only been providing evasive answers - almost the way Amri does it when he decides he just must not give an inch.

I'm not sure you'd be ready for a robust reply from me, SB.

To be honest, I feel like I've been talking to a wall. Your arguments sound very theoretical, and don't hold water on the tennis court.
I may not be a tennis pro, but even at my level surely know the difference between a flat-hit and a ball loaded with spin and how that affects play.
When I translate that knowledge to what I see when watch the pros, I am even more in awe of Federer.

Btw, this was not the robust version. 

...and, I'm still all ears to know why and how you/FK think Federer has declined. Please stick with tennis, no need to mention other sports.

summerblues wrote:Regarding the food - indeed

Also, a colleague of my wife lived in Paris for a number of years so he gave us tips for some good restaurants.  Not expensive or fancy, but they are very good indeed.  

I haven't lived in Paris, but can recommend this place:
http://www.cafe-pouchkine.fr
The only problem there is you can only fit one cake...and I chose "Medovick"!
It was...formidable!!!!  

Bodies breaking down is exactly what aging is.  But you still didn't answer.  If he is "far from it" at 33... that means you think Federer will be just as good at 40?

Annacone was the commentator for the Fed match last night on US tv and had fascinating insight as always.   He definitely gushes, and was more than happy to point out that everyone that wrote Fed off last year didn't know what they were talking about because they didn't see what was going on behind the scenes with his back.   Annacone said that Federer takes great pride in his physical fitness work he puts in and last year, he and his trainer were unable to do any of the normal work. Said Federer not only had his back issues, but felt the lack to training in his legs.   

Annacone did elude to the fact that Federer was at an age where he doesn't "explode" in his movement like before, and has to compensate in other areas.

Then Federer did a great interview on tennis channel with Justin Gimelstob who Federer got a great laugh out of being told was the 1st player he ever beat in a Masters 1000.   During the interview- Federer said that in his opinion a players prime is 24-25 years old,, that it used to be more in the earlier 20's, but he thought it had moved into the mid 20's.

Which is what the study I linked to earlier also concluded

summerblues wrote:

Tenez wrote:very poor example...are you saying that Fed declined in 2007???   
Wrong Fed was losing sets to Ferrer in 2007 and 2009 too!

The point I was making is you can read these individual match stats any way you want.  Fed's match against Ferrer last week was one of his harder matches against Ferrer, there are no two ways about it.

You answer by cherry picking matches yet again - which means you missed the point.

No you are the one cherry picking. You are so much biased in your arguments its comical. I can give you 100s of example....to start with....all the players Fed used to play in 2006/7.....none of them are bothering him now....bar Nadal and Djoko.....not even Murray might bother him nowadays.

Like you are refusing to see how tennis has changed in teh last 6/7 years.

But as I know you failed to admit the obvious many times.

1 - Nadal simply not in OCDs pre-Miami 05
2 - Took you many long posts of confusing logic to half admit that draw rigging could actually happen.
3 - Maintaining that I saw Fed's injury when there were none (spring 2012) when Fed finally admitted he had been having back problems on and off (even taking a rare MTO in that Wimby 2012).
4 - And now not refusing to see how the game dramatically changed....WHILE Federer was at his peak.

Enjoy your stay in Paris!