“You can’t repeat the past” – but you can come very close to it

[Haelfix]

RE: “You can’t repeat the past” – but you can come very close to it

Another thing I noticed from watching the Blake video and the Delpo one is that Blake was hitting through the court with more pace, was more aggressive in trying to push Roger into the corners and Federer was still knocking off winners galore. It just seems to me that the overall level of play was better in the 2006 match, honestly.

That's why I often felt bad for Blake, Nalbandian, Safin and Roddick. Not always and certainly no where the same consistency as the current top players, but everyone once and awhile they played at such an insanely high level, that I felt they could of and should of won a few more slams.

It was only b/c they went up against tennis of that calibre that they didn't get a few more. Some of those shots are not human.

 

[Front242]

RE: “You can’t repeat the past” – but you can come very close to it

Well sadly in the case of Blake and Nalbandian they got none. Was watching videos of Blake's forehands a few weeks ago. Insane power. One video had Nadal actually throwing his arms up in the air and shaking his head going wtf is this? But agree they both were unlucky like Roddick to exist in the height of Federer's dominance, though in Nalbandian's case a lot of it was in his own hands, as he beat Federer many times early in his career. He could've done a lot better I agree. I won't include Safin as he was more than capable of winning more slams but Federer wasn't to blame there. Safin was just a headcase. The injuries only hampered him at the very end of his career. Of course it's tough on Andy that he didn't win Wimbledon 2009 after such a brilliant performance. Stamina in the end won it for Federer.

 

[calitennis127]

RE: “You can’t repeat the past” – but you can come very close to it

Cali, if Federer is still in peak physical condition like you and Mike claimed, why would he cut schedule by about a third and played long matches in such exhausted shape (which he didn't years ago)? i am not going to single out just few matches and argue around his age, but the fact that he makes such choices and have such showings must mean something - that he is declining physically and unless you think he is just 'acting', that's all the evidence you need.

Simply claiming that someone can still play their best aged 30 is not evidence, nor is the claim that their physique doesn't dement unless there is injury.

Ricardo, here is some evidence for you: having studied the athletic development of the human body with the mentorship of an expert in the area, I know that the male human body reaches its physical peak between ages 25 and 28, and then it plateaus between 29 and 32. At 33, decline begins, with a little bit being lost year by year over time. Once you hit 33, the way you train and have trained - and the way you eat and have eaten - becomes much more important. But if you handle those areas well, you can still perform at a very high level, even sometimes a higher level, than you did 25 to 32. Hence, Tommy Haas or Kobe Bryant.

Now one complicating factor with tennis is the beating that the knees, hips, and joints take in those who have been playing since their youth (or, in Roddick's case, the shoulder with how he hit his serves as hard as he could for years and years). But the fact that tennis players get injured, or that they lose motivation, in their late 20s/early 30s does not change what they are physically capable of, when you simply understand human athletic potential in a vacuum of what the biology dictates.

This is why when I hear talk of players' pending retirements at age 26 sometimes, I find it utterly preposterous. Age 26 or 27 is right at the heart of one's physical prime. And, for those who keep themselves in great condition, that state can continue right up through ages 31 and 32.

Also, the point that Broken and hunting4aclue were making was about the aesthetics and level of Federer at the 2006 Masters Cup. Without a doubt, he was extremely impressive there. But to just say outright that he hasn't looked as good since or ever been as dominant since is ridiculous. Federer's level in the 2012 Rotterdam final was insane. He played better there than he did at many points in 2007 or 2009, and it rivaled his best performances in 2006. Look at the footwork, look at the quickness, look at the court coverage, look at how he is ahead in so many points because of his positioning. That level was tremendous and to dismiss it as trivial just because he was 30 at the time - like Darth or Broken to a significant extent do - is simply illogical.

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

RE: “You can’t repeat the past” – but you can come very close to it

cali, two little issues i got with your argumentation here (can't believe i'm doing this):
1) you mention the constant beating of knees, hips and joints (and i would assume that you don't decline that the same goes for areas like the back), but recognize possible limitations only when they amount to "injury" (whatever the definition of that may be). do you deny that the constant wear and tear can, even when it does not acutely reach a point where the player has to stop playing altogether, limit an aging player's abilities, and that this gets more likely over the years?
2) it's interesting that you point to the peak at somewhere between 25 and 28, but then assume a perfect plateau until 32, which can only drop off "once you hit 33". aside from the fact that you can't determine a complex biological mechanery in such narrow manners - if a player can have his peak as early as 25 (three years before others in your example), how would you rule out that his decline begins earlier than your fabled 33?

of course, you talk abuot general athletic development (pointing to your personal research and a non-named expert rather than facts that the rest of us could check), but not tennis-specific numbers. what's true for javeling or marathoners must not automatically be true for gymnasts or downhill skiers, right? each sport (and to a degree, each player) has specific conditions, requirements, stresses and strains. now, we've seen tons and tons of numbers, as well as visual evidence, that in modern tennis, top athletes have their greatest success before the age of thirty. you want to put all of this down to just motivation or injury - but wouldn't you think that at least a handful of players would've stayed sufficiently motivated to shift the picture? and if it's mostly - why would you assume that what showed in all the other greats (the increasing amount of wear and tear) can't possibly have made its way into Fed's game over the past couple of years?

 

[shawnbm]

RE: “You can’t repeat the past” – but you can come very close to it

I don't think a lot of this necessarily has to do with physical decline. I don't think you can underestimate the impact of losing desire--desire to practice, to devote the time to training, to forego living at home with family. to fight for 20+ shots in multiple rallies rather than go for the point-ender, etc. Borg and Sampras lost it eventually, whereas Connors and Agassi never seemed to and were sidelined by injuries over time. Personally, I don't see Roger fighting as much as he used to--his last great fight may have been last year's FO victory over Nole and then the one-two punch at SW19 to win #17. He just seems disinterested at times--something you did not see four, five or six years ago. Physically, he may be in top shape (but I doubt that as well, and he seems slower moving to the FH side) but the mind is stronger than the body and if the burning desire is muted--even just a smidgen--that can be enough to lose a few more tournaments and ranking points a year. So, I think it is more mental than physical generally.

 

[calitennis127]

RE: “You can’t repeat the past” – but you can come very close to it

cali, two little issues i got with your argumentation here (can't believe i'm doing this):
1) you mention the constant beating of knees, hips and joints (and i would assume that you don't decline that the same goes for areas like the back), but recognize possible limitations only when they amount to "injury" (whatever the definition of that may be). do you deny that the constant wear and tear can, even when it does not acutely reach a point where the player has to stop playing altogether, limit an aging player's abilities, and that this gets more likely over the years?

My point strictly has to do with physical potential, i.e. what one is capable of based on the realities of the human body.

2) it's interesting that you point to the peak at somewhere between 25 and 28, but then assume a perfect plateau until 32, which can only drop off "once you hit 33". aside from the fact that you can't determine a complex biological mechanery in such narrow manners - if a player can have his peak as early as 25 (three years before others in your example), how would you rule out that his decline begins earlier than your fabled 33?

The physical prime is the RANGE of 25 to 28, and a plateau occurs from 29 to 32.

As for your other question, it is all a matter of physical potential. Whether an individual tennis player falls off rankings-wise at age 29 or 31 is irrelevant. The question here is simply a matter of what one is physically capable of.

Roger Federer did not win 90 matches in 2011 like he did in 2006. But he was still capable of playing in 2011 the way he did in 2006. He was able to be as quick and as physically effective. That is why he beat Djokovic in the French Open semis in that classic match and had two match points against him in the US Open semis. That is also why Federer played his best match ever against Nadal at the French Open at age 29.

of course, you talk abuot general athletic development (pointing to your personal research and a non-named expert rather than facts that the rest of us could check)

No, I could certainly give you plenty of information and studies that you could check for yourself, if you're interested in something that detailed. This isn't one or two people's opinions. LOL. I assure you of that.

but not tennis-specific numbers. what's true for javeling or marathoners must not automatically be true for gymnasts or downhill skiers, right? each sport (and to a degree, each player) has specific conditions, requirements, stresses and strains.

Sure, but the human body is the human body. What it's capable of doesn't change based on the sport being played.

Basketball is a very demanding sport on the knees and joints. Michael Jordan won 6 NBA championships, and his first title didn't come until he was 28. It's funny how people talk about LeBron James being in his prime right now, at age 28, but when Federer was 28, people had been talking about him being old for three years already.

I remember John McEnroe's hilariously stupid remark in 2008 at Roland Garros that "this was Federer's last realistic chance to win the French". Yeah, sure John. That's why he played his best match against Nadal at the French three years after that.

now, we've seen tons and tons of numbers, as well as visual evidence, that in modern tennis, top athletes have their greatest success before the age of thirty.

El Dude's numbers are simply statistical documentation of what has happened, most of the time. They have no bearing on what is physically or scientifically possible. From his numbers, you would get the impression (I'm not saying that he said this) that Federer winning 10 titles in 9 months at age 30 would be impossible, or that Federer playing his best match ever at Roland Garros could come at age 29.

That is not scientifically accurate.

you want to put all of this down to just motivation or injury - but wouldn't you think that at least a handful of players would've stayed sufficiently motivated to shift the picture?

Ever heard of Roger Federer, David Ferrer, or Tommy Haas?

and if it's mostly - why would you assume that what showed in all the other greats (the increasing amount of wear and tear) can't possibly have made its way into Fed's game over the past couple of years?

At age 30, Federer does this:

- Wins Basel
- Wins Paris Masters
- Wins World Tour Finals
- Semis of Australia
- Wins Rotterdam
- Wins Dubai
- Wins Indian Wells
- Wins Madrid Masters
- Gets to Rome semis
- Gets to Roland Garros semis
- Gets to Halle final
- Wins Wimbledon
- Silver Medal at the Olympics (his best result yet)
- Wins Cincinnati


If that doesn't address concerns about recovery time or physical POTENTIAL for a 30-year-old, I don't think that even Ferrer's results in 2012 and 2013 could.

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

RE: “You can’t repeat the past” – but you can come very close to it

cali, two little issues i got with your argumentation here (can't believe i'm doing this):
1) you mention the constant beating of knees, hips and joints (and i would assume that you don't decline that the same goes for areas like the back), but recognize possible limitations only when they amount to "injury" (whatever the definition of that may be). do you deny that the constant wear and tear can, even when it does not acutely reach a point where the player has to stop playing altogether, limit an aging player's abilities, and that this gets more likely over the years?

My point strictly has to do with physical potential, i.e. what one is capable of based on the realities of the human body.

so? do you abstract "physical ability" from "wear and tear-related limitations"? not answering my point here.

2) it's interesting that you point to the peak at somewhere between 25 and 28, but then assume a perfect plateau until 32, which can only drop off "once you hit 33". aside from the fact that you can't determine a complex biological mechanery in such narrow manners - if a player can have his peak as early as 25 (three years before others in your example), how would you rule out that his decline begins earlier than your fabled 33?

The physical prime is the RANGE of 25 to 28, and a plateau occurs from 29 to 32.

As for your other question, it is all a matter of physical potential. Whether an individual tennis player falls off rankings-wise at age 29 or 31 is irrelevant. The question here is simply a matter of what one is physically capable of.

Roger Federer did not win 90 matches in 2011 like he did in 2006. But he was still capable of playing in 2011 the way he did in 2006. He was able to be as quick and as physically effective. That is why he beat Djokovic in the French Open semis in that classic match and had two match points against him in the US Open semis. That is also why Federer played his best match ever against Nadal at the French Open at age 29.

again, not answering my question, which was: why do you claim that at 33 and only at 33, the decline begins, and completely rule out the option that it could begin at 31, 30 or even 29 years, 8 months and 5 days?

of course, you talk abuot general athletic development (pointing to your personal research and a non-named expert rather than facts that the rest of us could check)

No, I could certainly give you plenty of information and studies that you could check for yourself, if you're interested in something that detailed. This isn't one or two people's opinions. LOL. I assure you of that.

then please do so, as i'm obviously interested. i didn't accuse you of not having sources, i pointed out that you didn't offer them (as would be good practice in all fact-based discussions).

but not tennis-specific numbers. what's true for javeling or marathoners must not automatically be true for gymnasts or downhill skiers, right? each sport (and to a degree, each player) has specific conditions, requirements, stresses and strains.

Sure, but the human body is the human body. What it's capable of doesn't change based on the sport being played.

Basketball is a very demanding sport on the knees and joints. Michael Jordan won 6 NBA championships, and his first title didn't come until he was 28. It's funny how people talk about LeBron James being in his prime right now, at age 28, but when Federer was 28, people had been talking about him being old for three years already.

little side-note - i do agree that the demise/decline/retirement talk has come way too often and way too early.
as for your point, though - of course what it's capable IN THE SPORT DOES change based on the sport being played, and i can't believe you'd deny that. sport-specific wear and tear is one thing (think of 31 year old gymnasts), and the specific abilities required for performance is another issue (i shouldn't even mention Golf or Baseball, but let's accept that the explosive energy necessary for high jumping is not the same skill set necessary for a center in hockey).

now, we've seen tons and tons of numbers, as well as visual evidence, that in modern tennis, top athletes have their greatest success before the age of thirty.

El Dude's numbers are simply statistical documentation of what has happened, most of the time. They have no bearing on what is physically or scientifically possible. From his numbers, you would get the impression (I'm not saying that he said this) that Federer winning 10 titles in 9 months at age 30 would be impossible, or that Federer playing his best match ever at Roland Garros could come at age 29.

That is not scientifically accurate.

no, only if you're ignorant then you'd get this impression from his numbers. if you're paying attention, then you'd see that noone's talking about "impossible" - but the numbers show that it becomes increasingly UNLIKELY for him to produce such numbers at a higher age. and given the fact that this tendency and increasing unlikeliness has consistently shown over about 3-4 decades, you can hardly blame someone for thinking that there's a reason for this. you say these reasons are strictly motivation and injury (only acknowledging injuries that are bad enough for someone to be forced out of play). others might disagree. noone claims that a good performance at 29, 32 or 35 is impossible, of course.

you want to put all of this down to just motivation or injury - but wouldn't you think that at least a handful of players would've stayed sufficiently motivated to shift the picture?

Ever heard of Roger Federer, David Ferrer, or Tommy Haas?

Federer's curve fits the general picture almost perfectly. Ferrer's curve is only slightly at odds (let's talk again in a year). Haas is, like Agassi before him (albeit on a lower level) an example that prolonged absence earlier in the career (substantially lessening the wear and tear) can aid later results (this has been shown out time and again, can't believe i have to mention it). also, we can only speculate about the potential results that Tommy could've produced had his career not been derailed by injuries and family issues (ie even better results a couple of years ago). btw, both David and Tommy have shown trouble keeping the level week-in, week-out. and last but not least: as much as i love both guys, neither of them is truly elite today. unless they start winning majors, they're not indicative of what's happening at the very top of the game.

and if it's mostly - why would you assume that what showed in all the other greats (the increasing amount of wear and tear) can't possibly have made its way into Fed's game over the past couple of years?

At age 30, Federer does this:

- Wins Basel
...
- Wins Cincinnati


If that doesn't address concerns about recovery time or physical POTENTIAL for a 30-year-old, I don't think that even Ferrer's results in 2012 and 2013 could.

apart from the fact that Fed is paying for this stretch with the worst start to a season he's had in a decade, please go out and do the same lists for Roger at age 25 or 26. i got a feeling that you'll be using the word "semis" a bit less. also, once again: noone in their right mind is saying that Fed would be incapable of producing top results. it's just that with age-related limitations (hell, we could even include 'motivation' and 'family distractions' in those age-related issues), it gets increasingly unlikely (might i dare say "harder"?) for him to do so, especially for prolonged periods. NOT impossible, just UNLIKELY.

can you honestly not agree with that at all?