Masters 1000: Toronto

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.

Let's concentrate on tennis here.

Timing and anticipation improves till a very late age. Probably 40 if not more. Look at Leander Paes. This guy has amazing reflexes and anticipation. I showed a clip of Federer executing 2 volleys in less than 3tenth of a second in a double with Stan earlier in Spring.

Body starts to feel recovery pain from strong effort from birth roughly so it's decline all the way...but probably starting to feel it more at 25 easily manageable till 27....then it gets harder. Problem is with drugs, most can play day in day out after 30 while in the past they could not. Federer said in 2007 or 8 that TMS were harder for him than slams because of the no recovery day. I am sure other pros use drugs (legal or not) to recover easily. But already we have seen Nadal being bagelled by Youshny at 23 or 24 cause he had played a tough match the day before. So recovery pain can happen very young.

But physically, ignoring recovery time, I think a player can achieve his best performance from 27 to 33 very easily.  So with shot making improving late I think a tennis player tends to actually peak between 29-33. If recovery from previous day match was not important I think a tennis player woudl reach his peak at 32/33 if not later.....like in the good old days. Look at Laver. he achieved his first GS at 24 versus a week amateurish opposition but he achieved the second GS at 30 versus other professionals (a considerably better level than when he was 24. However nowadays the body is pushed so much that I think we have to consider recovery as a very important factor.

A player can simply play his best tennis at 33/34 no problem. We have seen it. But yes I agree he won;t be able to produce it week in week out...and he will not want either (motivation after so many years on tour, pain threshold etc..). It does not meant that he is slow with poor reflexes...this is non-sense. As I said the timing and anticipation improves (Lendl is another player saying it then). This is what we are observing nowadays. With fitness becoming more important. The youngsters are struggling to succeed early...24 is now like in cycling considered too young. You will not see another Becker or Chang.....we had a Nadal cause he arrived fitter than any adults......but that is going to be impossible to see now...unless we have a guy more talented than Federer.  

But what I am sure is that if federer were playing the same as in 2006/2007, he would lose 4 out 5 times versus Djoko, Murray and Nadal. He had no choice to evolve with them.....and THAT is teh evidence you do not want to admit. Djoko and Murray improved considerably...and federer is still there in the mix with them. Just points there and then might turn the match one way or another....despite Fed's game looking obsolete at times.

His SHBH should have been his downfall 6/7 years ago when they started to slow the courts down..but he worked so hard physically, changed his FH and cut on those shanks, easy FH mistakes, etc...

Watch him lose v Nadal at teh FO 2005. Fed  woudl crush that 20yo Nadal today!

You still haven't given me an age.  I know you consider 33 "peak", when is "not peak"?

It varies. I said between 28-33...closer to 32.

You watching fed now? He is tired..he has played 8 matches in 10 days but his shots and mouvements are not bad, are they?

However I think he wants to pull out of this tournament....

He should have skipped this one.  I have no clue why he didn't!

FedererKing wrote:You still haven't given me an age.  I know you consider 33 "peak", when is "not peak"?

You still haven't shown me you understand current game and how it affects players.

cop out answer there

luvsports! wrote:cop out answer there

And a very polite one, too.

It's like players mature at different stages:

Defensive players with high margins shots, great physical stamina and 1D game mature earlier than that players with thin margin, more complex games.

Borg, Wilander, Chang, Hewitt, etc...all got very successful early.

Federer and new generation will mature much later....that's because timing improves considerably with age. You will see in 3 or 4 years, Thiems game will be much better..even if he has some margins for now.

So my point is peaking varies a lot too.

FedererKing wrote:He should have skipped this one.  I have no clue why he didn't!

Because he has nothing to lose and doesn't take his health and all the work he has put into getting himself fit again for granted.
He needs match practice.

To me, he is clearly enjoying this stage of his career, not having to prove himself to anyone. Just playing tennis while he still can.
I think he is particularly enjoying his S&V-ing and having Edberg in his box. To him, every day he can play in full health is a bit special now.

If he did it all through last year with that back injury, no reason for him to rest now.

noleisthebest wrote:
If he did it all through last year with that back injury, no reason for him to rest now.

Yes good points. I has always pushed his body...he said he went too far at times like last year but he thinks that's the way to heal...and he is not wring.....though I feel tonight might be too much.

The good thing is that he is cutting on the long rallies. He must like the fast american tour.

luvsports! wrote:cop out answer there

Yup.  Clearly NoleIsBest knows their position on this subject is not credible.  I've never had to resort to not answering a question because I was scared my argument was bad. It shouldn't matter.  I think that concludes my discussion on the topic.  None answering of question = lost. 

There has to be some point that a player is too old, and so basically it's where you draw the line.  I draw mine based on overwhelming history and the studies (like the one I linked to), and Fed's opinion, and pro opinion.  And that puts prime physicality at around 23-25 years old.

Tenez and NoleIsBest are still putting an age on it, but it's way over 30.  The difference is, there is 0 evidence to support that.  There is tons to support mine.

And what is your evidence to support it is 23-25?

A bit of "evidence" for you  FK:

Cincy 1/4F happen to be:
Robredo 32.25
Ferrer 32.3
Benetteau 32.7
Federer: 33
Stan 29.4
Fognini 27.3
Murray 27.3
Raonic 23.7

237.95

Average 29.7

Imagine if Rao was not that big and strong....the average age woudl be easily above 30!

Now find me a tournament in the last 5 years where the average age of the 1/4F was 23-25!!!!!

Semi finalist Toronto:

Federer: 33
Lopez 33
Dimi 23.4
Tsonga 29.5

Average 29.725

Average Finalists: 31.2

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

If by robust you mean rude, then I can do without that (though I think I could handle it if necessary). I meant robust in substance rather than presentation.

noleisthebest wrote:To be honest, I feel like I've been talking to a wall.

Rest assured that the feeling is mutual.

noleisthebest wrote:Your arguments sound very theoretical, and don't hold water on the tennis court.
...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.

This suggests to me you are not really all ears. You out of hand dismiss the type of reasoning that you do not find appealing - rather than trying to listen to it and either agree or provide a reasoned response why you do not.

Nitb,

You say you feel like you have been talking to a wall. What i hear from your side is roughly this:

1. Tennis has changed a lot and PHYSICALITY KILLS TENNIS
2. What Fed can do in the current conditions is amazing
3. One only has to look at his game to see that he has not declined.

None of that really leads anywhere.

Even if we agree on 1 and 2, it is not sufficient to say anything about whether or not Federer declined.

All that is really left is you saying that it is obvious by looking at his game that he has no declined. But while that is all fine and well, it is meaningless as a discussion point.

What points do you think you made that answer the question of whether or not Fed has been declining?

Tenez wrote:You are so much biased in your arguments its comical.

Well, let's say I disagree The way I see it, you picked an example that suited your needs, said it demonstrated a pattern, and claimed that finding an opposite example would be extremely hard. I called your bluff by showing that an opposite example was very easy to find. If you now choose to call me "so biased its comical" that says more about you than about me.

Tenez wrote:But as I know you failed to admit the obvious many times.
1 - ...
2 - ...
3 - ...
4 - ...

Uh oh, what is that? Should I read it as your way of admitting you are wrong - sort of like when a defender is trying to commit an ugly foul realizing they were so out of position they had no other way?

This would be - to put it mildly - "odd" even if you did not happen to misinterpret every one of the four items.

Anyway, if you do not want to discuss the topic anymore, fine with me. Otherwise, come back when you are ready.

Tenez wrote:A bit of "evidence" for you  FK:

Cincy 1/4F happen to be:
Robredo 32.25
Ferrer 32.3
Benetteau 32.7
Federer: 33
Stan 29.4
Fognini 27.3
Murray 27.3
Raonic 23.7

237.95

Average 29.7

Imagine if Rao was not that big and strong....the average age woudl be easily above 30!

Now find me a tournament in the last 5 years where the average age of the 1/4F was 23-25!!!!!

That isn't how averages work, and using 1 tournament certainly isn't.

That's a weak response FK. You ask for evidence and when you have some you deny it. Of course average work like that!

It's not one tournament....it's 2!!!....they are not picked at random, they simply are the last 2.

I ask you to find a single one in the last 5 years which would support your 23/25 average and you are avoiding the question.