Federer's 2006 domination revisited

So let me answer for you! Would Federer lose those below players nowadays?

David Nalbandian (ARG)? NO- In fact in 2007 Fed at 26 lost twice convincingly to Nalbandian....and has not lost since.
Andy Roddick (USA)? No
Ivan Ljubicic (CRO)? No
Rafael Nadal (ESP) - Well maybe....as ever...
James Blake (USA) - NO
Tomas Zib (CZE) - No
Guillermo Garcia-Lopez (ESP) - No
David Ferrer (ESP) - No
Paradorn Srichaphan (THA) - No
Fernando Gonzalez (CHI) - No
Nicolas Massu (CHI) - No
Robin Soderling (SWE) - No
Robby Ginepri (USA) - No
Viktor Troicki (SRB) - No
Wesley Moodie (RSA) - No
Takao Suzuki (JPN) - Maybe...Fed had a tight 3 sets in 2006!
Benjamin Becker (GER) - Nope
Tim Henman (GBR) - Nope
Janko Tipsarevic (SRB) - No
Novak Djokovic (SRB) - Well, how old was Djoko in 2006? 19?
Jimmy Wang (TPE) - No
Vincent Spadea (USA) - No
Marc Gicquel (FRA) - No
Nikolay Davydenko (RUS) - No
Andy Murray (GBR) - Maybe he was 19 then
Paul-Henri Mathieu (FRA) - No
Sebastien Grosjean (FRA) - No
Dmitry Tursunov (RUS) - No
Xavier Malisse (BEL) - No
Richard Gasquet (FRA) - Fed won very convincingly a more mature Gasquet the last 3 years..but lost to him in 2005!!!! Strange!!!
Nicolas Mahut (FRA) -No
Tomas Berdych (CZE) - Fed won the last time they played
Mario Ancic (CRO) - No risk
Jonas Bjorkman (SWE) - No risk
Rohan Bopanna (IND) - comical!
Tommy Haas (GER) - No
Diego Hartfield (ARG) - comical
Alejandro Falla (COL) - No
Juan Ignacio Chela (ARG) - No
Potito Starace (ITA) - No
Radek Stepanek (CZE) -No
Nicolas Almagro (ESP) - No
Alberto Martin (ESP) - No
Benjamin Balleret (MON) - Don't think so!
David Ferrer (ESP) - Yet to win!
Fernando Gonzalez (CHI) - No
Arnaud Clement (FRA) - No
Olivier Rochus (BEL) - No
Paradorn Srichaphan (THA) - No
Stan Wawrinka (SUI) - Yes lost to him....but Stan is reaching maturity at 29! Not sure he can reproduce though
Mohammad Ghareeb (KUW) - Doubt it though Fed had a tight 2 setter against that 500 ranked player in 2006!
Robin Vik (CZE) - Eh no
Mikhail Youzhny (RUS) - No
Denis Istomin (UZB) - No
Florian Mayer (GER) - No
Max Mirnyi (BLR) - No
Nicolas Kiefer (GER) - No
Ivo Minar (CZE) - No
Fabrice Santoro (FRA) - No
Marcos Baghdatis (CYP) - No
Gael Monfils (FRA) - No

In orther words Would fed face the same players in 2014 as in 2006.....he would dominate as much as he did then. In fact much more convincingly as I think he would handle young Djoko, Murray and Nadal much better than he did then. Now unfortunately he is facing much improved versions of those players....and that makes a big difference!

noleisthebest wrote:Here's a question for FK & the rest:

how would have Fed 2006 fared in 2014 Wimbledon final?

Won it in 3 sets.

Why are you bringing so many retired players? How do they count?

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Here's a question for FK & the rest:

how would have Fed 2006 fared in 2014 Wimbledon final?

Won it in 3 sets.

I am beginning to think you are looking at the past with rose-tinted glasses.
Here's a reminder:



Do you really think that this version of Nadal who took the match to 4 sets incl 2 TBs is better than 2014 Wimbledon final Nole?

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Why are you bringing so many retired players? How do they count?

Good question. Cause if you want to compare Federer of 2006 with 2012-14, you have to compare who he was facing then as well!!! (logic no?). All those retired players are those Fed faced in 2006! So you can see that most, if not all belonged to the fast courts, low bounce, little spin, short rally generation. Against those Federer never had and never will have any problem against, especially on fast courts.

Things change when Nadal, Djoko and Murray come to the scenery.

In 2006 on wimbledon final he loses a set to Nadal and gets into a second TB in the 3rd set! Nadal is 20 or 21! The following year he is in real battle and he loses in 2008!!! I sincerely doubt that Fed 2006, on slow Wimby would have been able to beat 2014 Djoko.

noleisthebest wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Here's a question for FK & the rest:

how would have Fed 2006 fared in 2014 Wimbledon final?

Won it in 3 sets.

I am beginning to think you are looking at the past with rose-tinted glasses.
Here's a reminder:



Do you really think that this version of Nadal who took the match to 4 sets incl 2 TBs is better than 2014 Wimbledon final Nole?

Huh!! bring in Nadal and show how poor Fed was playing back in 2006??..  If You bring his match against Nadal in 2006, bring a match of 2014 against Nadal itself and lets see how that fares.

Nadal has always been the worst opponent for him. But back then Fed ran him absolutely close, with Nadal just winning a few important points here-n-there. Fed was dominating Nadal but for Clay.

Do you think Fed has better chance against Nadal in 2014? Ah.. Nadal has improved. And So has Fed. So why he is losing so tamely to him now than he ever was?

But Rotla - This clip is so telling. Look at fed's returning, It's terrible. he just sliced the FH back in the middle of the court!

His BH, even his FH are so loopy despite being on grass.

Look also how long suddenly are the rallies on grass.....something that Federer never experienced before Nadal and Djoko. Fed stands quite far back as well on this clip!

Surely this clip is excellent to put Fed's game in perspective on slower courts (cause yes, this dry Wimby is as slow as clay if not more.

And once again the same patter as FO 2006. Fed's easy first set and then tires towards the end. I think Fed is still helped by the surface but what Nadal does here is considerably bettered by Djoko who took in 2014 the ball considerably early with much better BHs than Nadal 06, constantly hammering Fed's BH.

I am afraid the argument stops here!

[quote="raiders_of_the_lost_ark"]..Do you think Fed has better chance against Nadal in 2014? Ah.. Nadal has improved. And So has Fed. So why he is losing so tamely to him now than he ever was?[/quote]

That's not true. Despite a bad back in 2013, Fed was close to beating Nadal in Cincy. Federer never anhilated a fit Nadal like London 2011. Their closest match at the FO was also 2011....and bear in mind Nadal has considerably improved since 2006!

Tenez wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Why are you bringing so many retired players? How do they count?

Good question. Cause if you want to compare Federer of 2006 with 2012-14, you have to compare who he was facing then as well!!! (logic no?). All those retired players are those Fed faced in 2006! So you can see that most, if not all belonged to the fast courts, low bounce, little spin, short rally generation. Against those Federer never had and never will have any problem against, especially on fast courts.  

Things change when Nadal, Djoko and Murray come to the scenery.

In 2006 on wimbledon final he loses a set to Nadal and gets into a second TB in the 3rd set! Nadal is 20 or 21! The following year he is in real battle and he loses in 2008!!! I sincerely doubt that Fed 2006, on slow Wimby would have been able to beat 2014 Djoko.

 You talk as if Fed struggles against only these 3? Did you not see how he lost to Stan in the MC final. And don't tell me he tanked that one. And Nishkori? And Gulbis... And Gulbis nor Stan play the road runner game? Forget loses, even in his wins he isn't comfortable.

Fed 2004-07 would slice through his opponents without breaking a sweat. Fed's struggles against the entire circuit have been increasing . The field is improving? Its doesn't work that way.

Tenez wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:..Do you think Fed has better chance against Nadal in 2014? Ah.. Nadal has improved. And So has Fed. So why he is losing so tamely to him now than he ever was?[/quote]

That's not true. Despite a bad back in 2013, Fed was close to beating Nadal in Cincy. Federer never anhilated a fit Nadal like London 2011. Their closest match at the FO was also 2011....and bear in mind Nadal has considerably improved since 2006!

You'll not get this 'bad back' excuse anytime to suit your arguments.. Losses at RG,Wimbledon etc... His back was bad... he takes a set off nadal.. 'despite bad back....".. If he could manage to do so well with the bad back against Nadal, why he didn't do it against Stakh?

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote: You talk as if Fed struggles against only these 3? Did you not see how he lost to Stan in the MC final. And don't tell me he tanked that one. And Nishkori? And Gulbis... And Gulbis nor Stan play the road runner game? Forget loses, even in his wins he isn't comfortable.

Fed 2004-07 would slice through his opponents without breaking a sweat. Fed's struggles against the entire circuit have been increasing . The field is improving? Its doesn't work that way.

He said before playing Stan in that final he was knackered. He had played 6 or 7 matches in IW, 4 in Miami, the DC and then MC. So surely he gets tired cause once again, every match nowadays I much more demanding that in 2006. That's the main difference for him. It's not one or 2 shots rallies it's many 5 plus rallies. This is why I wanted to highlight all the close sets and matches he went through in 2006 to show that had he been a bit more pushed we would have had quite a few strange results like this tight 3 setter v japanse ranked 1000+!!

And of course at 33 he is not going to fight as hard for everything, especially in those tough circumstances with the game being much more physical than in 2006 .....like he almost pulled out of Cincy...yet he could win it. Perfect example of the spirit Fed is in..."yes let's give it a try....and not "I know I can win this and will call with my serve and FH, I finish the point effortlessly". That's over I am afraid.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Tenez wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:..Do you think Fed has better chance against Nadal in 2014? Ah.. Nadal has improved. And So has Fed. So why he is losing so tamely to him now than he ever was?[/quote]

That's not true. Despite a bad back in 2013, Fed was close to beating Nadal in Cincy. Federer never anhilated a fit Nadal like London 2011. Their closest match at the FO was also 2011....and bear in mind Nadal has considerably improved since 2006!

You'll not get this 'bad back' excuse anytime to suit your arguments.. Losses at RG,Wimbledon etc... His back was bad... he takes a set off nadal.. 'despite bad back....".. If he could manage to do so well with the bad back against Nadal, why he didn't do it against Stakh?

It's not "an excuse" it's a fact.....It's a fact Nadal pulled out of the USO. The difference is one keeps on playing the other doesn't but as observer of the game it is important we take note when a player is not 100%. He says it himself! Do you think he is using excuses?

Yes the game is full of up and down nowadays. Look at Nadal, Murray, Djoko they have ALL very weird results....and Federer is no exception.

So clips of 2006 must now prove he wasn't so good after all (or at least compared with 2014)? I have already said what i wanted to say in this thread but this is a bridge too far as you ask me.
There are thousands of clips of 2006 showing the opposite.

A random pick: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knt8TUwzqTo
If you don't feel like watching the whole clip, just watch the point at 03:02.
Every shot he hit in that point has length, speed and hit with great ease and confidence (the usual stuff back then). Looking at a point like that i cannot say any different that he's not the player he once was.

Just reacting on the 2006 wimbledon clip, or the intention of posting it anyway 

Hopefully the thread won't end up with one side telling how absolutely shitty he was in 2006 and the other side telling he's now too old to hold a racket 

Federer was so right with that famous line: "I created a monster"...

gallery play wrote:So clips of 2006 must now prove he wasn't so good after all (or at least compared with 2014)? I have already said what i wanted to say in this thread but this is a bridge too far as you ask me.
There are thousands of clips of 2006 showing the opposite.

A random pick: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knt8TUwzqTo
If you don't feel like watching the whole clip, just watch the point at 03:02.
Every shot he hit in that point has length, speed and hit with great ease and confidence (the usual stuff back then). Looking at a point like that i cannot say any different that he's not the player he once was.

Just reacting on the 2006 wimbledon clip, or the intention of posting it anyway 

Hopefully the thread won't end up with one side telling how absolutely shitty he was in 2006 and the other side telling he's now too old to hold a racket 

The point of the thread is to tell us that Federer of 2014 is a better player than in 2006 and that he has not declined.

noleisthebest wrote:

gallery play wrote:So clips of 2006 must now prove he wasn't so good after all (or at least compared with 2014)? I have already said what i wanted to say in this thread but this is a bridge too far as you ask me.
There are thousands of clips of 2006 showing the opposite.

A random pick: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knt8TUwzqTo
If you don't feel like watching the whole clip, just watch the point at 03:02.
Every shot he hit in that point has length, speed and hit with great ease and confidence (the usual stuff back then). Looking at a point like that i cannot say any different that he's not the player he once was.

Just reacting on the 2006 wimbledon clip, or the intention of posting it anyway 

Hopefully the thread won't end up with one side telling how absolutely shitty he was in 2006 and the other side telling he's now too old to hold a racket 

The point of the thread is to tell us that Federer of 2014 is a better player than in 2006 and that he has not declined.

yeah, that wasn't so difficult to figure out.
But i have the idea that the arguments are getting more and more extreme.

Better opposition, different conditions: OK fair enough. But clips of 2006 are not showing he's a better player now.  On the contrary: imo those 2006 clips make him look rather slow now (and less powerful).

I disagree, Nole makes Fed look slower as his balls are  faster and much less loopy than Nadal's in 2006.

Those clips were chosen as a reply to rotla's claim that Fed of 2006 would've beaten Nole of Wimbledon 2014 final (in straight sets).

Fed played much better in Toronto and especially Cinci.

I don't know which extremes you are talking about.

Anyway, here's what Fed's just said:

"I was considering not playing for just a day or so on Monday.
I need to be smart about how much I play, when I play and how I feel. So I waited for Monday, Tuesday to see how I played. In practice I felt like I was recovering quickly and gave it a go.

Despite admitting he was tired during the tournament. I could have just not played here and gone into the Open feeling good about my chances, now I feel even better.

Now I come in with great confidence. I can really rest now, rather than having to work on stuff. I can just enjoy New York for what it is and go out to the practice courts and do the opposite of what I had to do last year. Last year I went out there and did three-hour practice sessions and went for extra practice sessions after matches sometimes. That I don’t have to do. I know my game is where I want it to be. It’s about just keeping that level up right now."

So he is not a robot or a winning machine as some think he should be in order to prove his dominance.
Now, he is sparing himself more as the game is very physical, plus he really has nothing left to prove.
He is simply cherishing his life on tour while he can. His family and 4 little children are travelling around the world. Doesn't that say enough about his love for tennis?
Yet so many miserly commentators can't wait to write him off.

Our job is to enjoy him.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
 You talk as if Fed struggles against only these 3? Did you not see how he lost to Stan in the MC final. And don't tell me he tanked that one. And Nishkori? And Gulbis... And Gulbis nor Stan play the road runner game? Forget loses, even in his wins he isn't comfortable.

Fed 2004-07 would slice through his opponents without breaking a sweat. Fed's struggles against the entire circuit have been increasing . The field is improving? Its doesn't work that way.

I'm not sure Stan here is the best example as he beat Federer only twice and both times the only times they played in Monte-Carlo. Now let's choose these two matches. I know 2009 is not 2006 but it is still a year he made all slams finals and was at a "peak" age, as per your definition.

2009

ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Monte Carlo Monaco

Clay

R16

Wawrinka, Stan 6-4, 7-5 Stats

2014

ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Monte Carlo Monaco

Clay

F

Wawrinka, Stan 4-6, 7-6(5), 6-2 Stats

Now please tell me which Federer performed better vs. Stan in this particular tournament? And let's not forget that 2009 was Federer's best year on clay, beating Nadal convincingly in Madrid 64-64 and winning the French Open.

Now for Federer vs. Gulbis, it is not as clear, but their H2H is even and on slow clay it seems Gulbis beats Federer all the time, but not enough data points here.

Year	Tournament & City	Surface	Round	Winner & Score
2014	Roland Garros France	Clay	R16	Gulbis, Ernests 6-7(5), 7-6(3), 6-2, 4-6, 6-3 Stats
2010	ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Madrid Spain	Clay	Q	Federer, Roger 3-6, 6-1, 6-4 Stats
2010	ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Rome Italy	Clay	R32	Gulbis, Ernests 2-6, 6-1, 7-5 Stats
2010	Doha Qatar	Hard	Q	Federer, Roger 6-2, 4-6, 6-4 Stats

Plus, it seems it is always close between Federer and Gulbis, so maybe Gulbis is one of those players who give Federer problems, peak or no peak...

As for Wimbledon, 2006 was pretty damn close for a Nadal that had not played much on grass and as we all know by now can be beat by anyone at Wimbledon. Plus Federer did not play his best in the final this year and Nole played the best we have seen him play this year! Unfortunately for Federer, he is only unbeatable in SF at Wimbledon, he can be beat in Final  

Tenez, it's become obvious to me that it is futile me discussing this with you.  I showed you data that clearly proves that age matters.  Your only rebuttal is to tell me that even though the data proves players are winning the majority of slams in their mid 20s (and none after 31), the reason for this isn't anything to do with age.  That isn't just illogical, it's impossible.

The Federer of 2006 would have swept everyone away in straight sets 2014 Wimbledon. The fact is, at the age of 32, he almost beat a player who is still near his peak and prime.  And the WN1.

I also sent you a link of a study that also conclusively agrees that age matters.  It's also a scientific fact that age matters.  Every piece of science we have says that age matters, not just to physical things, but to mental.  It's the reason reaction times get worse, you start to forget names more, and eventually, many get dementia.  For your theory to work, we have to be seeing multiple players winning Slams into their 30s... and for the last 50 years, it hasn't happened.

Where exactly is your proof that Federer has gone better with age?  There isn't one shred of evidence to support it, but there's a ton to say the opposite.

You keep saying that tennis players are always improving, despite that also being impossible.  Runners, and long jump, and other records are rarely beaten, and even when they are it's by very small amounts.  Your entire theory collapses like a badly stacked deck of cards... because for your theory to even stand a CHANCE, Nadal, Novak and every other player would have had to improve far above what is even possible.  And you say Nadal is now even better... and yet he's lost 3 times in a row at Wimbledon to rank 100s.  He's clearly entering decline.  He's also won only ONE slam off clay in the last 4 years!

sphairistike wrote:

I'm not sure Stan here is the best example as he beat Federer only twice and both times the only times they played in Monte-Carlo. Now let's choose these two matches. I know 2009 is not 2006 but it is still a year he made all slams finals and was at a "peak" age, as per your definition.

2009

ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Monte Carlo Monaco

Clay

R16

Wawrinka, Stan 6-4, 7-5 Stats

2014

ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Monte Carlo Monaco

Clay

F

Wawrinka, Stan 4-6, 7-6(5), 6-2 Stats

Now please tell me which Federer performed better vs. Stan in this particular tournament? And let's not forget that 2009 was Federer's best year on clay, beating Nadal convincingly in Madrid 64-64 and winning the French Open.

Excellent comment & chart Sphair!
I'll only add that Stan of 2014 is considerably better than his 2009 self.

gallery play wrote:So clips of 2006 must now prove he wasn't so good after all (or at least compared with 2014)? I have already said what i wanted to say in this thread but this is a bridge too far as you ask me.
There are thousands of clips of 2006 showing the opposite.

But this is grass! and he is playing a "modern" day player. SO it's not just another clip. He is not playing kiefer, Bjorkman or Ljubicic. We know what he could do with them and we know what he certainly can do with them now. This is why this clip is important. Let's watch the FO 05, 06 as well v all the player and then against those he started to struggle. Different game! different results.

A random pick: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knt8TUwzqTo
If you don't feel like watching the whole clip, just watch the point at 03:02.
Every shot he hit in that point has length, speed and hit with great ease and confidence (the usual stuff back then). Looking at a point like that i cannot say any different that he's not the player he once was.

You mean the point v Davydenko? Sure and Can you see how he holds the middle of the court and dictates? v Nadal, Nurray and Djoko he has no chance to hold the middle of the court. He would be forces thanks to spiny balls to run right and left like they do. That is in my view the key difference. That was Hewitt problem too. He would do the running but Fed was dictating. Now with Nadal, Djoko and Murray they manage while on the trameline to force Federer into the trameline too. Big difference. That's the problem in this 2006 list I put above, all those players were simply playing a different game.

Hopefully the thread won't end up with one side telling how absolutely shitty he was in 2006 and the other side telling he's now too old to hold a racket 

He was not shit, he was the best at the 90s game....mid 00s another type of game came up...based on legs and lungs and this 2006 clip shows how uncomfortable he is with this game....despite playing on his own surface.

To make it clear, I have no doubt that had Fed been born 10 years later he would have sorted all those guys...like he sorted his own generation.....however for him it has been a long and difficult road and unfortaunely his age is not helping him but considering everything: on the day (not day in day out) he is a better player in 2012 than 2006....when it comes to playing those new guys.

FK look at Bubka records

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Bubka

Look at carl Lewis 100m record

Look at Linford Christie 100 record

Look at Gebrselassie marathon record....

Look at the TDF winners age....etc...

Now those are pure physical performance...now imagine what you learn hitting a ball as well. You are saying that a tennis player stops learning how to hit a ball after 23-25...

Absurd!

I didn't say that at all....

FedererKing wrote:I didn't say that at all....

You are implying it. You are implying that a player peaks at 25 cause his fitness hits the bar at 25 but you are ignoring so many other aspects of the game.

And as shown you theory that a fitness peaks at 25 is non sense as Bubka, Lewis, Christie and 1000s other will prove.

You can say what you like...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knt8TUwzqTo

The fact is, Fed today does not play that good.  Nowhere near.  It's obvious from watching that Slam that he does not reach that level anymore.  The footwork is better, his forehand is harder, his backhand is better, his movement is better.  It's ridiculous how good he is there and no one has ever come close to it.

You can measure the speed he is hitting that, and his left/right speed.  We aren't just imagining it.

Actually, Fed of Cinci 2014 not only plays better, but is faster on his feet as well. His footwork has improved since 2006.
I often watch exclusively just how he moves as to me it's as fascinating as his ball-striking.

You are in a massive minority with that opinion.  Put that to the pros, and you won't find one who agrees.

In this day an age of media brainwash, it's an honour and a pleasure to be in the minority.

'Only dead fish go with the flow'

This debate could rumble on for quite some time, with no sign of abating.

Indeed!  

I have enjoyed the debate as it opened up a discussion of how the game and players change and affect each other.
Almost like that one from Heraclitus: you can never enter the same river twice.

noleisthebest wrote:Actually, Fed of Cinci 2014 not only plays better, but is faster on his feet as well. His footwork has improved since 2006.
I often watch exclusively just how he moves as to me it's as fascinating as his ball-striking.

If everything has improved for Fed why aren't his results reflecting it? I agree the game itself has changed and with new technology etc. But so has Fed. He now has a new bigger frame, and with the improvements in his own game as you say with footwork and speed etc, he sure must be able to produce at least half the result he was getting back then.

So explain why is still losing so much more as compared to 04-07?

Looks like Fed has improved: 10%
And everyone else: 50%
Game: 30%

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Actually, Fed of Cinci 2014 not only plays better, but is faster on his feet as well. His footwork has improved since 2006.
I often watch exclusively just how he moves as to me it's as fascinating as his ball-striking.

If everything has improved for Fed why aren't his results reflecting it? I agree the game itself has changed and with new technology etc. But so has Fed. He now has a new bigger frame, and with the improvements in his own game as you say with footwork and speed etc, he sure must be able to produce at least half the result he was getting back then.

So explain why is still losing so much more as compared to 04-07?

Looks like Fed has improved: 10%
And everyone else: 50%
Game: 30%

in my opinion fed is about 65-70% the player he was in his prime,and what everyone seems to be ignoring is that he is nowhere near as consistent as he was back then. martina navratilova said it best,the older you become the more bad days you have.not only that,roger himself has said that as he has gotten older,it takes a lot more time for his body to recover from matches.anyone who even uses a gym regularly would understand how hard it becomes to work through nagging aches and pains which only increases with age and thats not even competitive professional sport
he doesnt play with as much confidence or variety as he once did.he is more then a step slower but credit to him, has modified his game in a manner in which he can try to make up for his decline and for the chinks in his armour that were once never there 
i believe the younger generation (the murray,nadal,djokovic generation) has improved while he has been on a steady decline 
in my opinion this whole argument just boils down to match ups 
fed has always matched up well against pretty much most the entire field because he is the most complete player there has ever been

OK then Rotla and co. Let's not forget he really only started with the bigger frame this year and it takes time to adapt 100% to a new racket (new feel, etc.). So what if Fed is YE #1 this year? What will you guys say? He is suddenly much younger than last year? It is a weak era? Nadal is hurt, poor baby, and Nole is now a family man (like Fed in 2009 who did better than Nole 2014 in terms of results), etc. Or will you agree that age is just one part of the equation? Also, to all those who argue but Fed is a genius, etc. so he is an exception, in terms of tennis talent yes, but is he a physical beast? He has by far played most games among all active players (and won most too) so he should be more physically drained than a guy his age anyways, so his being 33 should be more like 35/36 and then it is difficult to believe the physical peak is in the mid 20's... Could it be the early to mid 30's?  

Federer is the greatest player of all time, thus making the statement that what he does past 30 is indicative of a trend, is laughable.  Him becoming year end WN1 is still an extremely unlikely scenario, but if he did it at 33, he would the first man in history to do it.  That would not prove he is "better than ever", because he used to be WN1 by a MILE. And he used to win 3 of the 4 slams in a year, and reach the final of another.

You seem to have this idea that exceptions make rules... or that one feat negates a ton of evidence to the contrary.  It's as plain as the nose on Pinocchio's face that he isn't the same man as he was.  And that's why he isn't winning as much.

But your theory is going to fall apart spectacularly when you witness Novak and Nadal not winning a single slam past 29.  And that's already how it seems to be for Murray.  Already Nadal can't even reach the semi final of wimbledon anymore, losing to rank 100s three times in a row.

Or are you going to tell me rank 100s are now improving too, and that Nadal's age has nothing to do with it?

sphairistike wrote:OK then Rotla and co. Let's not forget he really only started with the bigger frame this year and it takes time to adapt 100% to a new racket (new feel, etc.). So what if Fed is YE #1 this year? What will you guys say? He is suddenly much younger than last year? It is a weak era? Nadal is hurt, poor baby, and Nole is now a family man (like Fed in 2009 who did better than Nole 2014 in terms of results), etc. Or will you agree that age is just one part of the equation? Also, to all those who argue but Fed is a genius, etc. so he is an exception, in terms of tennis talent yes, but is he a physical beast? He has by far played most games among all active players (and won most too) so he should be more physically drained than a guy his age anyways, so his being 33 should be more like 35/36 and then it is difficult to believe the physical peak is in the mid 20's... Could it be the early to mid 30's?  

You make good points Sphair again.

The only argument I read against Fed's peak being 2009-2012 is that in 2006 he dominated more......time and again they refuse to see how important the rest of the field is. The fact that already in 2006/07 Fed started to lose against 20yo does not want to be taken into consideration for some reasons.

Nadal has exposed very early on Fed's limitations in a very simple way:

1 - Fed can do anything with the ball ...as long as the ball is not too powerful.
2 - Fed's FH as good as it is can't get it past the new generation on slower courts
3 - More importantly, If you are fit enough to retrieve his FH and keep hammering Fed's SHBH you will not have to run much and make him run instead.

We can certainly blame the  new string technology, the slow balls, the special diets as much as we want, but the fact is that Fed was facing a completely different challenge after 2005 with arrival of Nadal first and the other road runners.

That is what some here do not want to see.

Why has Nadal lost to rank 100s three times in a row at Wimbledon, Tevez, if he has improved as much as you say?

FedererKing wrote:Why has Nadal lost to rank 100s three times in a row at Wimbledon, Tevez, if he has improved as much as you say?

So Nadal wins wimby in 2008, he peaks, he is not playing in 2009, he declines, he wins again in 2010, therefore peaks again...and should he win Wimbeldon next year, he will have peaked again?

Maybe because as I said the physicality of the game affects EVERYBODY! is it that difficult to understand? WInning the FO is now more taxing than the time where Nadal just had to face Fed in FO final maybe?

No, again, it's the age.  He's now outside of the mid 20s and heading fast for 30.  I think that is a far better explanation for these losses.

FedererKing wrote:No, again, it's the age.  He's now outside of the mid 20s and heading fast for 30.  I think that is a far better explanation for these losses.

Ah, so the fact he still dominated 2013 does not matter then? Are you suggesting that had he been 5 years younger he would have had the calendar slam in 2013? Age does not explain the lack of reflexes for Nadal on fast court. His tennis skills do. The same as Federer tennis skills explain the fact he is till one of the top best players this year at 33.

Dominated 2013?  Not in the Slams or ATP tour finals.  He won French and US...  He always wins the French, and that's the first non clay slam he has had in four years.

I'd rather suspect four years is a better example than yours.  Along with losing three times to rank 100s at Wimbledon.  Not exceptions.  Rules.

FedererKing wrote:Dominated 2013?  Not in the Slams or ATP tour finals.  He won French and US...  He always wins the US, and that's the first non clay slam he has had in four years.

I'd rather suspect four years is a better example than yours.  Along with losing three times to rank 100s at Wimbledon.  Not exceptions.  Rules.

Ah, so winning 2 out of 3 slams he played in, 5 ATP 1000's (+ 1 final) a WTF final, finishing the year at #1 by a healthy margin, is not dominating? what's his record that year? Something like 76-7 (4 of those losses in finals, 3 of them at the hands of Djokovic who was either #1 or #2 (behind Nadal at #1)? And all that after an alleged career threatening injury (ahem, ahem).

2012 he hadn't played for 1/2 the year almost. 2011 he was in all finals almost and was only losing to Djokovic. 2010 he was dominant too. Some people might think more than 2013, but I find his 2013 year more impressive...

Always wins the French that should have read.

So average age is down from 1968.  Interesting.  But I'm sure Tenez and the and the gang will find some way to interpret that other than what it's proving.  Since the 1970s, the Slam winner average age has NEVER gone above 27 years.

There's a list of the 100 m sprint records since the eighties. And the age the runner had when he broke the record.

Speaks for itself, just like the graph of the average age slam winner in my previous post.
I read that even chess players peak at 31!
Those are facts, not opinions. I could post many more statfacts like these but i guess i made my point

Speaking of Bolt... what an idiot.  He is now likely never to break his own record, and if he hadn't been showboating and telling the world how great he is by slowing down, he could have made it a record to stand for the next 3 or 4 decades.  He thinks he is going to go down as the greatest of all time, but as soon as someone beats his record, he will be second best.  No one will remember the trophies.