Has Dimitrov lost a step?

[calitennis127]

Of course, Djokovic, Nadal, and Murray are the ONLY players Federer has lost to in the past 5 years.

There were no losses to Fish, Roddick (twice), Karlovic, Blake, Stepanek, Bennetteau (twice), Melzer, Simon, old Hewitt (on grass!), Tommy Haas (on grass!), Wawrinka, a laundry list of losses to Berdych (whom he had previously dominated), a sudden vulnerability against big hitters (two back-to-back losses to DP in 2009, losses to Tsonga, Soderling, as well as the previously mentioned Berdych), Davydenko (twice), Baghdatis, Montanes, and Gasquet.

Likewise, there have been no hints of Federer aging such as repeated back problems and multiple injuries. Gassing out in longer matches (even admitting that he took the foot off the pedal in some sets to conserve energy for others), and no sudden losses in focus that resulted in him blowing more matches after having match points (and not just against Djokovic) than he had in his entire career up until that point.

You're absolutely right. No hints of Roger being a bit below the player he once was at all.

Look, this is all a matter of degree. Let's break it down in a descending order of significance.

The Slams:

2008 Australian Open - loss to Djokovic in the semis
2008 French Open - loss to Nadal in the final
2008 Wimbledon - loss to Nadal in the final
2008 US Open - win over Murray in the final

2009 Australian Open - loss to Nadal in the final
2009 French Open - win over Soderling in the final
2009 Wimbledon - win over Roddick in the final
2009 US Open - loss to newcomer Del Potro in the final (5 set match Federer could have very easily won)

2010 Australian Open - win over Murray in the final
2010 French Open - loss to Soderling in the quarters
2010 Wimbledon - loss to Berdych in the quarters
2010 US Open - loss to Djokovic in the semis after having two M.P.'s

2011 Australian Open - loss to Djokovic in the semis
2011 French Open - loss to Nadal in the final (with win over undefeated Djokovic in the semis)
2011 Wimbledon - loss to Tsonga in the quarters (after having a 2 set to 0 lead and with Tsonga serving out of his mind during the comeback)
2011 US Open - loss to Djokovic in the semis (after playing two incredible sets to take the lead and again having two match points)

2012 Australian Open - loss to Nadal in the semis
2012 French Open - loss to Djokovic in the semis
2012 Wimbledon - win over Murray in the final (and Djokovic in the semis)
2012 US Open - loss to Berdych in the quarters

2013 Australian Open - loss to Murray in the semis (in 5 sets)

So, of Federer's 16 Slam losses since the start of 2008, a measly 5 have come against players outside the Top 4: 1 loss to Del Potro (2009 Australian Open), 1 loss to Soderling (2010 French Open), 2 losses to Berdych (2010 Wimbledon and 2012 US Open), and 1 loss to Tsonga (2011 Wimbledon).

So, again, you and Darth are simply being petty when it comes to all of this, particularly with respect to the Slams. If you are seriously going to argue that losing to Del Potro in 5 sets in a match that could have gone either way is a sign of significant decline beyond .0001%, you have to be kidding. If you are going to argue that getting aced by Tsonga's incredible serving is a sign of significant decline, you have to be kidding. The 2010 Soderling and Berdych losses had more to do with motivation if you ask me than they did Federer's actual tennis game dropping. You want proof? Look at what Federer did the following two years (Roland Garros 2011 and Wimbledon 2012) when he re-committed himself. If the problem was age, he never could have done this. If he was too old at 28, then how did he play as well as he ever has at 29 and 30? You simply cannot make a consistent argument in response to this.

Second, regarding your list of losses to second-tier players. Again, this is a matter of degree and how we define "decline". If we are going strictly by the results on the page, then yes, Federer in 2010 was not Federer in 2006. But this seems extraordinarily petty to me. This argument amounts to saying "Federer was much better when he held two match points against Roddick in TMC or pulled out a tight 3-setter against Almagro in Rome than he was when he lost to Simon in a tight 3-setter in Toronto". That argument is logically preposterous. You are maintaining that 4 or 5 key points (which often entail luck) in long 3-set matches with upwards of 200 total points indicate that a player has significantly declined.

I'm sorry, but that is asinine.

The issue to me is evaluating the play and the shots and the level the player is capable of. If a guy at 29 isn't as hungry as he was at 24 or 26, I'm not going to hold it against him and say "he isn't the same player" or "he has lost a step". Instead, I'll say what I have said: something to the effect that, as is customary in professional tennis, the player is in a new career phase now and isn't exactly as motivated week-to-week as he was when he was a 23 or 24-year-old bronco looking to prove himself, or a 22-year-old with a spry attitude.

Again, this is all a matter of definition. If you are talking about player quality, then I don't see how Federer has declined much at all, in the sense that when he really wants to bring his A-game, he can bring it as much as he ever wanted to. Now if you are talking about win quantity, then yes, obviously there has been a decline. But is this due to his game having fallen off or a mix between better elite competition and non-tennis game-related factors such as motivation/mileage/injuries?

I go with the latter. But, in my book, that is not decline of the tennis player Roger Federer.

EDIT: Oh, and by the way, what Federer did in the 2011 US Open semis against Djokovic in sets 1 and 2 was arguably the highest level of hardcourt tennis he has ever produced. His shotmaking was insane. The fact that he didn't keep it up had much more to do with Djokovic than Federer himself. If you take that recently-turned 30-year-old Federer and place him back in the 2003-2007 era, he beats any of his major rivals with that level going away.

This has to be acknowledged along with the fact that he got tired. Really, I only see Djokovic as the one who could have beaten Federer (through attrition) that day playing as he was.

 

[Moxie]

Cali, I'm sorry that I championed you in this thread for actually having a sense of humor. You've rather betrayed me on that score. Instead of humor, you've opted for tiresome...again. :sigh:

 

[brokenshoelace]

Mileage and injuries ARE age related. You're likely going to have more mileage the older you get, since you're playing more matches during that time. Likewise, your body just doesn't recover as well at 31 than it does when you're 25.

You're really bringing up 2010 vs. 2006? His level in 2010, on average, wasn't anywhere near what it was in 2006. Now, and here is what I always maintained: He was still capable of bringing the goods (and still is), just not as consistently. For example, if you watch his destruction of Tsonga and Murray at the AO in 2010, then yeah, they weren't too far off from his 2006 level (in fact, he had a better AO in 2010 than he did in 2006, IMO).

But on a match-to-match basis, he wasn't as consistently good. The argument that it's simply a motivation issue or worse, that he's still capable of bringing his A game "when he wants to" is a joke. Where was his A game against Berdych at Wimbledon that year? Did he not want to bring it? Oh, he had an injured back? I'm sure that's got nothing to do with getting older.

Where was Roger's A game when he was, by his own admission, "conserving energy" in sets 2 and 4 against Djokovic at the US Open? Is that something 25 year old Federer would have done?

It's ironic how often you insist on just watching the level of tennis... Well, take your own advice and do that with Federer, and tell me he how many times did he bring his absolute best in recent memory? Where was this A game against Berdych at the US Open last year? How do you explain his sudden decline in returning serve, when he used to be the best in the world at chipping big serves back in play and neutralizing the point? (this particular decline was pretty evident at Wimbledon in 2010 and 2011).

Or did Roger lack motivation then? You accuse ME of simplifying issues yet you justify years' worth of declining results with "motivation"?

Was Roger's motivation missing in 2011 when he just couldn't find the court in the 3rd and 4th set against Djokovic at the US Open after dominating the match, started looking gassed and again, had to conserve energy? (Something that I'm sure, you don't think has to do with aging).

And NOW you only want to talk about slams? It's ironic how often you change your arguments to suit your narratives considering you've always criticized others when only wanting to discuss slams.

You can sway this however you want but ultimately there's a fact you can never refute: Roger Federer is not the same player he once was. He has declined. He's still capable of playing phenomenal tennis, just not as consistently as he used to. That said, even his below-par game is still extremely good.

When you're able to refute the above paragraph, you'll be one to something.

 

[calitennis127]

Cali, I'm sorry that I championed you in this thread for actually having a sense of humor. You've rather betrayed me on that score. Instead of humor, you've opted for tiresome...again. :sigh:

Why can't it be both that I started off the thread with something funny and now I am taking part in a serious argument with Broken about aging? Why does it have to be one or the other?

---

It's ironic how often you insist on just watching the level of tennis... Well, take your own advice and do that with Federer, and tell me he how many times did he bring his absolute best in recent memory?

Let's see. How about dusting the floor with Rafael Nadal at the Indian Wells semis in 2012, or thoroughly outplaying Novak Djokovic in the Wimbledon semis of 2012, or masterfully cleaning Djokovic's clock in the 2012 Cincinnati final?

It's amazing how you dismiss Federer's run starting with Basel 2011:

- Basel 2011
- Paris 2011 (first win at Bercy in his career)
- World Tour Finals 2011
- Rotterdam 2012
- Dubai 2012
- Indian Wells 2012
- Madrid 2012
- Wimbledon 2012
- Cincinnati 2012

Is this memory recent enough for you? It's amazing how you say nothing about this string of 9 significant victories in the space of 10 months, to go with a Silver Medal at the Olympics and going deep at the Australian Open, the French Open, and Rome, as well as making the final at Halle. But nevermind all of that.

He just completely fell off, didn't he?

Where was this A game against Berdych at the US Open last year?

Where was his A-game in the 2004 Olympics? Where was his A-game in the Cincinnati match against Murray in 2006?

"Cali, he was tired after winning Toronto". Oh really Broken? I thought you only get tired when you turn 28.

How do you explain his sudden decline in returning serve, when he used to be the best in the world at chipping big serves back in play and neutralizing the point? (this particular decline was pretty evident at Wimbledon in 2010 and 2011). Or did Roger lack motivation then?

I'm sorry but a great deal of this has to do with motivation, intensity, and energy level. Returning serve is about reflex and anticipation. It requires a certain degree of exertion that can be very taxing. The fact that Federer isn't as spry as he once was doesn't mean his game has fallen off or that he is a significantly different player.

And, to answer your question directly, yes, I do think Federer lacked some motivation before those 2010 and 2011 Wimbledon losses. It isn't that he was apathetic, but I don't think he prepared as passionately and intensely as he did in 2012.

But the key thing here is that Federer can flip the switch any time he wants in order to return as well as he used to.

Don't you think Federer did a decent job of neutralizing Isner's serve in the 2012 Indian Wells final AFTER Isner had just beaten 24-year-old Djokovic in the semis with that ENORMOUS serve?

How about the Madrid final against Berdych last year? Federer did just fine getting into Berdych's service games on the fast blue clay, converting 4 of 11 break points.

How about the STRAIGHT SET wins over Del Potro in Rotterdam and Dubai? Why are you silent about those?

Talk about big server on a fast surface.

Was Roger's motivation missing in 2011 when he just couldn't find the court in the 3rd and 4th set against Djokovic at the US Open after dominating the match, started looking gassed and again, had to conserve energy? (Something that I'm sure, you don't think has to do with aging).

No, his motivation wasn't missing. He just happened to be facing a better shotmaker in Djokovic than any one in his age group (save the largely irrelevant outliers Safin and Nalbandian), who also happens to be a fitness freak who takes pride in great defense and prolonging rallies.

Please give me one analogue to Djokovic from the 2002-2006 era. Please. I am eagerly waiting.

And NOW you only want to talk about slams?

Re-read my reply. I addressed the non-Slam matches. I specifically brought up Almagro in Rome, Roddick in Shanghai at TMC, and Simon in Toronto.

You can sway this however you want but ultimately there's a fact you can never refute: Roger Federer is not the same player he once was. He has declined.

In the primitive and narrow sense of being a musclehead who goes all-out 100% on every single point in every single match.

He's still capable of playing phenomenal tennis, just not as consistently as he used to.

The problem with that statement is the word "capable". The stretch between Basel 2011 and Cincinnati 2012 completely disproved that. 9 titles in 10 months (including 3 MS and Wimbledon), as well as semis at the Australian Open, Rome, and the French Open (where he lost to players that could have beaten him and did beat him 5 years earlier).

That disproves your idea that post-28 he hasn't been capable of "playing phenomenal tennis....as consistently as he used to". He certainly has been capable.

Besides, I consider that way of looking at it to be misguided any way. To me, it's all about the shots and the brand the player brings when he steps on the court. In that sense, Federer is not really any different than what he used to be.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Let's see. How about dusting the floor with Rafael Nadal at the Indian Wells semis in 2012, or thoroughly outplaying Novak Djokovic in the Wimbledon semis of 2012, or masterfully cleaning Djokovic's clock in the 2012 Cincinnati final?

In recent memory, Federer truly played close to his best in the Cinci final against Djokovic and the second week of Wimbledon. Just because he won other titles doesn't mean he played as well.

It's amazing how you dismiss Federer's run starting with Basel 2011:

- Basel 2011
- Paris 2011 (first win at Bercy in his career)
- World Tour Finals 2011
- Rotterdam 2012
- Dubai 2012
- Indian Wells 2012
- Madrid 2012
- Wimbledon 2012
- Cincinnati 2012

Oh, so now we're talking results again? I'm confused because you keep changing your argument. Okay, let's look at results and compare his results in 2008-2013 to 2003-2007. I'll wait and see if there's a drop or not. Something tells me there is, and a quite significant one.

But yeah, in fairness, that was quite a run. One that completely drained him. Tell me, what has he done since? How many titles has he won? Wait, you mean it's possible that at 30 years of age, it took too much out of him, something that never happened when he was younger? Oh, maybe he is aging then!

He just completely fell off, didn't he?

I never said that. You just keep repeating it because you love to create your own narratives and them argue against them.

Where was his A-game in the 2004 Olympics? Where was his A-game in the Cincinnati match against Murray in 2006?

Uh, those weren't slams. In your previous post, you explicitly asked to focus on slams. Never mind the fact that these are some of the very few notable examples in a 3 year stretch. They're significantly more frequent these days. I'll still wait for you to tell me why Federer, who can still bring his A game "when he wants to", has had increasingly more sub-par (by his standards) performances in majors (as in level, not just results) these days.

"Cali, he was tired after winning Toronto". Oh really Broken? I thought you only get tired when you turn 28.

LOL this is too good. To back up an argument, you create a fake quote and answer it? I never claimed he was tired after Toronto. You just tried to project that to boost an argument you have yet to come up with anything convincing in regards to.

I'm sorry but a great deal of this has to do with motivation, intensity, and energy level. Returning serve is about reflex and anticipation. It requires a certain degree of exertion that can be very taxing. The fact that Federer isn't as spry as he once was doesn't mean his game has fallen off or that he is a significantly different player.

Yes. And energy levels and intensity don't drop with age, right? You just admitted he isn't as spry as he once was. I rest my case. And yeah, it does mean his game has dropped off, just not too significantly. But when you become an inferior returner, a slightly worse defender, get tired more, get injured more, declining reflexes, etc... then you're not as good as you once were. Especially in a sport of inches.

But the key thing here is that Federer can flip the switch any time he wants in order to return as well as he used to.

Why didn't he do it against Berdych last year? Why didn't he do it against Murray at the AO this year? Why was he so pathetic against Novak at the FO last year? This is such a silly argument. He's had so many sub standard performances lately that you're making it seem like he willingly didn't perform better, since he's able to just "flip the switch."

Don't you think Federer did a decent job of neutralizing Isner's serve in the 2012 Indian Wells final AFTER Isner had just beaten 24-year-old Djokovic in the semis with that ENORMOUS serve?

I do. It was also one match. I saw him go 4 sets against Tsonga at Wimbledon without getting a sniff at breaking serve. See, we can all select few matches to boost an argument.

How about the Madrid final against Berdych last year? Federer did just fine getting into Berdych's service games on the fast blue clay, converting 4 of 11 break points.

WOW! ON CLAY? CAREER DEFINING ACHIEVEMENT! Oh, but it's blue clay, so the surface is just as fast as the US Open... I forgot (where incidentally, Federer struggled to break Berdych's serve and lost).

How about the STRAIGHT SET wins over Del Potro in Rotterdam and Dubai? Why are you silent about those?

Talk about big server on a fast surface.

Del Potro never, ever, had a super dominant serve. He serves well, but in fact, the main criticism against him is that for someone his size, he doesn't use his serve to its full potential (it's a criticism you shared after his loss to Nadal at Wimbledon. But again, you're changing stances to suit your argument).

No, his motivation wasn't missing. He just happened to be facing a better shotmaker in Djokovic than any one in his age group (save the largely irrelevant outliers Safin and Nalbandian), who also happens to be a fitness freak who takes pride in great defense and prolonging rallies.

That really doesn't change the fact that Federer gassed out badly for the second year in a row. But I forget, Roger has NEVER faced such a fitness freak before. it's not like he played a gazillion matches against Nadal, including a crap load of five setters (one of them being on clay), and looked fine physically with the exception of their AO encounter. THAT'S why Roger gassed, not because he got older. Yup, after 2 sets of dominating Djokovic, he tired. Perfectly normal.

Please give me one analogue to Djokovic from the 2002-2006 era. Please. I am eagerly waiting.

Nadal. Whom Federer played five setters against him at Miami 2005, Rome 2006 (a GRUELING match, far more grueling than any of his matches with Novak, ON CLAY), Wimbledon 2007, and Wimbledon 2008. And looked physically fit in all of them. You can limit it to the first two matches if you insist on 2002-2006. But it's important to note that Federer looked fresh as a daisy in the scotching Australian Open heat in a FAR longer match against Safin in 2005, yet gassed out after 2 sets of quick tennis against Djokovic in 2011 on a faster surface. Odd.

The problem with that statement is the word "capable". The stretch between Basel 2011 and Cincinnati 2012 completely disproved that. 9 titles in 10 months (including 3 MS and Wimbledon), as well as semis at the Australian Open, Rome, and the French Open (where he lost to players that could have beaten him and did beat him 5 years earlier).

That disproves your idea that post-28 he hasn't been capable of "playing phenomenal tennis....as consistently as he used to". He certainly has been capable.

Uh yeah, which is why it took so much out of him that he hasn't won a title since. That's not quite as "consistently" as he used to, considering he used to go on similar runs for years, as opposed to months.

Besides, I consider that way of looking at it to be misguided any way. To me, it's all about the shots and the brand the player brings when he steps on the court. In that sense, Federer is not really any different than what he used to be.

Yes, it's all about the shots. That's simply what determines if a player is still the same. Decline in movement, fitness, stamina, energy, recovery, etc, prove nothing. Misguided indeed.

 

[calitennis127]

Broken, did you really think I was going to let you off the hook? No way. I'm going to unpack your nonsense point by point. Nothing is forgotten.

In recent memory, Federer truly played close to his best in the Cinci final against Djokovic and the second week of Wimbledon. Just because he won other titles doesn't mean he played as well.

Seriously, what are you smoking? Did you see Federer's level in the Rotterdam final against Del Potro? His footwork and shotmaking were vintage, downright insane stuff. Look at the footwork and quickness here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdIBtJjBAB0

Now, even if he wasn't always 100% spry as he was in 2005-06, the difference is so negligible as to not warrant mentioning. Whatever difference there is can be accounted for more by mentality than physical deterioration.

Oh, so now we're talking results again? I'm confused because you keep changing your argument.

LOL....how so? Because I provided a list of victories that demonstrated consistent results that you said he wasn't "capable" of producing anymore. Think about this: between the end of 2007 and throughout 2008 (when Federer was 26), he did not produce a consistent string of results like he did from Basel 2011 to Cincinnati 2012, yet Broken maintains that he wasn't "capable" of playing his best tennis on a regular basis anymore. Are you serious?

Also, it's not like Federer was winning cheap little 250's. We're talking Wimbledon, World Tour Finals, 4 MS events, and 3 significant 500's capped off by Dubai, in addition to going the semis of Melbourne, Roland Garros, and Rome.

Okay, let's look at results and compare his results in 2008-2013 to 2003-2007. I'll wait and see if there's a drop or not. Something tells me there is, and a quite significant one.

Uhhhh, hold on a minute. First of all, the Basel 2011 to Cincinnati 2012 stretch just about matches anything he has pulled off in his career save maybe 2006, and even then it wasn't off by much. You can also make the argument that what he did in this stretch was against better elite (i.e. Top 4 and even Top 5-7) competition.

As for the overall dropoff post-2008, the question is "why?" Is it because of physical decline or a range of other factors? I go with the latter. Federer did not face 2003-2007 players as complete and as good as the rest of the Top 4 or Del Potro in the 2009 US Open final.

You of course know that.

But yeah, in fairness, that was quite a run. One that completely drained him. Tell me, what has he done since? How many titles has he won?

For goodness sake, you have to be kidding me.

He lost to Andy Murray in Shanghai, a guy who troubled him going back to 2006!

He lost a very close three-set final to Juan Martin Del Potro in the Basel final, in a 3rd-set tiebreak.

He made it to the finals of London, where he lost to Novak Djokovic, who in your eyes is apparently no more of a challenge than Lleyton Hewitt or Andy Roddick or Fernando Gonzalez or Marcos Baghdatis.

The only really "ugly" loss he has had since Cincinnati was to Benneteau - but come on, it was one match against a tough match-up. Big deal.

I should also add, to answer your question of "what has he done since?", a couple other things. One thing he has done since is basically take a break and take some time off.

Did you ever consider the possibility that at 17 Slams and with the all-time #1-ranking weeks-held record, he doesn't feel as motivated to win every single tournament anymore? Maybe he doesn't have the urgency to play every single week and win at all costs? Maybe he has two three-year-old daughters he spends some time with?

These are factors that are completely external to his physical ability as a tennis player. They may affect the level of his play at a given moment, but they don't change what he is physically capable of.

Wait, you mean it's possible that at 30 years of age, it took too much out of him, something that never happened when he was younger? Oh, maybe he is aging then!

Again, you have to be kidding. LOL

Apparently in your world it isn't physically challenging to win 4 Masters, a Slam, World Tour Finals, and 3 500's, as well as go far in numerous other tournaments (mostly prominent ones).

Think of what you are saying: Federer was fit enough and had enough stamina to continuously recover from matches to win these long and taxing events, but yet he was significantly declined. That is simply ridiculous. LOL.

The guy was getting up day after day, after winning matches, and continuing to win against better opponents in later rounds. Plus, he was often doing this against guys who were 5-10 years younger. This completely disproves your notions of 30-year-olds "aging".

Uh, those weren't slams. In your previous post, you explicitly asked to focus on slams.

No, I started with Slams and then moved on to the other events.

Never mind the fact that these are some of the very few notable examples in a 3 year stretch. They're significantly more frequent these days. I'll still wait for you to tell me why Federer, who can still bring his A game "when he wants to", has had increasingly more sub-par (by his standards) performances in majors (as in level, not just results) these days.

Variety of factors that have little to do with his physical potential at the current moment. Physically he is more than capable of doing everything he always has. He just isn't as interested in winning tournament after tournament and would rather focus on prioritizing the Slams to have maximum energy for them. He also knows that once he is 33/34, the possibility of true decline will kick in, and if he wants to go far in Slams until he is 35/36, he'd be best off not risking injury.

This does not mean that physically he isn't capable of playing as well as ever and doing it on a day-after-day basis.

Yes. And energy levels and intensity don't drop with age, right?

From a physical standpoint, when we're talking about a 31-year-old, they may or may not. The point is, they don't have to. And if they do, the question is "why?" Is it physical, or might it be other factors like motivation or off-court distractions or getting a little tired of constantly being on the road?

It could by any number of things.

You just admitted he isn't as spry as he once was. I rest my case. And yeah, it does mean his game has dropped off, just not too significantly.

Yeah, that's a pretty tiny significance. I find the pettiness of your whole argument almost hilarious. Considering all the tight matches he won in 2005-2006 and all the tight matches he has lost of late, what your argument basically amounts to is that those 4 or 5 key points that swung the matches against him in recent years are an indicator of "substantial decline" of Roger Federer as a tennis player. I simply find that to be preposterous, just making a big deal out of total pettiness. He is still, essentially, the same player.

But when you become an inferior returner, a slightly worse defender, get tired more, get injured more, declining reflexes, etc... then you're not as good as you once were. Especially in a sport of inches.

If Federer is getting tired more, he sure didn't show it in 2012, and if he is getting tired more, maybe it is because he isn't training as hard as he once did? Why does it have to be that he is simply 31 and not 26?

Federer has back pain at 2013 Indian Wells - he's aging. Del Potro misses a year with wrist problems - well, his wrist just hurts. Nadal misses the start of the 2006 season with knee problems - well, he just has a bad knee. I love these arguments.

Now, everything you listed can simply be addressed by Federer through suitable training and intense motivation. It is perfectly within his physical capability to play at the best level he always has. Go look at the Rotterdam and Cincinnati finals for starters.

Why didn't he do it against Berdych last year? Why didn't he do it against Murray at the AO this year? Why was he so pathetic against Novak at the FO last year?

LOL....maybe Murray is a much tougher player to deal with at the Australian Open than Fernando Gonzalez. Maybe Djokovic is a brilliant clay-court player who really messes with Federer's head nowadays on the surface. Maybe Berdych was playing one of the best tournaments of his life.

This is such a silly argument. He's had so many sub standard performances lately that you're making it seem like he willingly didn't perform better, since he's able to just "flip the switch."

No, it's you who is being silly by maintaining that he has to win every single tournament (which he pretty much did from Basel 2011 to Cincinnati 2012 anyway) to be the "same player". That is, again, incredibly petty considering the good number of tight matches Federer used to pull out.

I do. It was also one match. I saw him go 4 sets against Tsonga at Wimbledon without getting a sniff at breaking serve. See, we can all select few matches to boost an argument.

Sure we can. Unfortunately for you, some of us are right and some of us are wrong, and in this case you fall into the latter category.

Tsonga happens to be the best server in the modern era when he is on. He blasts 135-140 mph bombs with variety and explosive pop that even Roddick couldn't match. Not touching his serve at Wimbledon is nothing to be ashamed of. Tsonga got in a groove against Fed hitting mammoth serves.

Did you ever consider that maybe Mark Philippousis and Ivo Karlovic weren't the same quality of servers as Jo-Wilfried Tsonga in the zone? LOL.

Del Potro never, ever, had a super dominant serve. He serves well, but in fact, the main criticism against him is that for someone his size, he doesn't use his serve to its full potential (it's a criticism you shared after his loss to Nadal at Wimbledon. But again, you're changing stances to suit your argument).

If you watch the highlights, you see Federer getting in to points when Delpo was hitting the huge serves that he is capable of. This contradicts your contention that he was no longer capable of doing this.

That really doesn't change the fact that Federer gassed out badly for the second year in a row. But I forget, Roger has NEVER faced such a fitness freak before. it's not like he played a gazillion matches against Nadal, including a crap load of five setters (one of them being on clay), and looked fine physically with the exception of their AO encounter. THAT'S why Roger gassed, not because he got older. Yup, after 2 sets of dominating Djokovic, he tired. Perfectly normal.

Okay, this argument really tops it all off. Your perception of the 2011 US Open semifinal is such nonsense that I don't know where to begin.

First of all, you talk as though in sets 3 and 4, Djokovic did nothing impressive, as if he was just standing there as his helpless opponent couldn't move with back spasms and dehydration. That is ridiculous. Djokovic was smoking winners and hitting spectacular shots. He earned sets 3 and 4. Sure, Federer may have been saving some energy but that's just because of how good Djokovic is.

If you brought 2007 Gonzalez or 2005/2006 Roddick or 2004 Hewitt into the future in a time capsule, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE STOOD A CHANCE AGAINST FEDERER IN THAT 2011 US OPEN SEMIFINAL. Federer probably would have won the third set 7-5 or in a tiebreak, after letting up a little at the start of the 3rd set. And, if he didn't take the 3rd set, he certainly would have taken the 4th.

And do you seriously think Federer never conserved energy at times when he was younger?

Moreover, Federer was able to play an excellent, high-level 5th set. What does that tell you? The guy had amazing stamina that day. Maybe you should give more credit to Djokovic for producing a classic match with his own shots in sets 3 and 4 instead of just saying that Federer "gassed".

I don't know about you, but I personally think that Djokovic 2011 was a much better player than Hewitt 2004, Agassi 2005, or Roddick 2006.

Nadal. Whom Federer played five setters against him at Miami 2005, Rome 2006 (a GRUELING match, far more grueling than any of his matches with Novak, ON CLAY), Wimbledon 2007, and Wimbledon 2008. And looked physically fit in all of them. You can limit it to the first two matches if you insist on 2002-2006. But it's important to note that Federer looked fresh as a daisy in the scotching Australian Open heat in a FAR longer match against Safin in 2005, yet gassed out after 2 sets of quick tennis against Djokovic in 2011 on a faster surface. Odd.

Okay, so what Federer pulled off against Benneteau at Wimbledon or Del Potro in the Olympics means nothing? No stamina there?

Also, it doesn't matter that at event after event, he recovered on short time to win 4 and even 5 matches within 1 week? That doesn't mean anything?

I also recall a match in the 2005 Masters Cup where Federer wasn't the most energetic in sets 3 and 4 - remember the Shanghai final?

As for the Nadal comparison, I really am not buying it. The only match you really have going for you there is the Rome 2006 final, which I will grant was very, very physical. The 2005 Miami final was won because Nadal at such a young age wasn't yet physically ready to sustain all the way through 5 sets like that. But the point is, they really didn't face each other in a bunch of 5-set classics in the 2002-2006 era.

But Djokovic in 2011 was much more of a well-rounded package than anything Federer was facing 2002-2006 in those kind of big-stage matches.

Uh yeah, which is why it took so much out of him that he hasn't won a title since. That's not quite as "consistently" as he used to, considering he used to go on similar runs for years, as opposed to months.

I'm sorry, but that is just silly. Maybe this guy Andy Murray has some game. Maybe Juan Martin Del Potro is pretty tough on a fast hard court. Maybe Novak Djokovic isn't too shabby a player. Maybe the match-up with Nadal is a very difficult one.

Maybe the guy has taken some time off.

Moreover, pulling off the kind of run from Basel 2011 to Cincinnati 2012 that Federer did requires excellent stamina and capacity to recover, as well as quickness and athletic burst. For Federer to have done it shows just how high his ceiling still is, contrary to what you mistakenly believe.

Yes, it's all about the shots. That's simply what determines if a player is still the same. Decline in movement, fitness, stamina, energy, recovery, etc, prove nothing. Misguided indeed.

Yeah, Federer had a HORRIBLE time of it recovering at Basel, Paris Masters, World Tour Finals, Rotterdam, Dubai, Indian Wells, Madrid, Wimbledon, and Cincinnati. The guy couldn't even stand up in the morning from all the pain it was that bad. Yet, he managed to club out a victory here and there, didn't he?

The movement, fitness, stamina, and energy you refer to are all factors that Federer was at 30 and is at 31 CAPABLE of matching to his fullest potential from earlier years. If they are not always at that level, you should consult non-physical-potential-related factors for an explanation.

 

[brokenshoelace]

1- Federer's results have dropped considerably.
2- His level has dropped on a match-to-match basis.
3- He is over 30.
4- He loses to players he almost never lost to before, and far more frequently than he used to.
5- He is prone to big hitters, something that has never happened to him in his prime.
6- He is more injury prone, and doesn't recover as well between matches.
7- He gets tired more often in longer matches.

The day you can refute any of these arguments, I'll take the argument that he's still as good as ever seriously.

For now, enjoy that you "didn't let me off the hook," because the FACTS I stated above are irrefutable.

 

[Moxie]

Cali, I'm sorry that I championed you in this thread for actually having a sense of humor. You've rather betrayed me on that score. Instead of humor, you've opted for tiresome...again. :sigh:

Why can't it be both that I started off the thread with something funny and now I am taking part in a serious argument with Broken about aging? Why does it have to be one or the other?

Because it's not a serious argument. You guys have been over this territory, and it's just grudge. It's not interesting to the majority of members, and you've done pages on it. It's eye-glazing for the most of the rest of us. Either you guys take it to PMs, or desist. It's really a dead argument. Please respect that we're trying to create a new board here, and encourage new conversation. It's not helpful to have you guys go at each other for pages at a time, over an old scab.